Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Apr;16(2):420-441.
doi: 10.1017/S1366728912000405. Epub 2012 Nov 20.

The timing and magnitude of Stroop interference and facilitation in monolinguals and bilinguals

Emily L Coderre  1 , Walter J B VAN Heuven, Kathy Conklin
Affiliations

The timing and magnitude of Stroop interference and facilitation in monolinguals and bilinguals

Emily L Coderre et al. Biling (Camb Engl). 2013 Apr.

Abstract

Executive control abilities and lexical access speed in Stroop performance were investigated in English monolinguals and two groups of bilinguals (English-Chinese and Chinese-English) in their first (L1) and second (L2) languages. Predictions were based on a bilingual cognitive advantage hypothesis, implicating cognitive control ability as the critical factor determining Stroop interference; and two bilingual lexical disadvantage hypotheses, focusing on lexical access speed. Importantly, each hypothesis predicts different response patterns in a Stroop task manipulating stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). There was evidence for a bilingual cognitive advantage, although this effect was sensitive to a number of variables including proficiency, language immersion, and script. In lexical access speed, no differences occurred between monolinguals and bilinguals in their native languages, but there was evidence for a delay in L2 processing speed relative to the L1. Overall, the data highlight the multitude of factors affecting executive control and lexical access speed in bilinguals.

Keywords: Stroop; bilingualism; executive control; facilitation; interference; lexical access.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
(a) Interference and (b) facilitation effects taken from Glaser and Glaser's (1982) original color-naming Stroop study (Experiment 1), for the five SOAs used in the current study.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Mean RTs (ms) for the (a) monolinguals (Experiment 1); (b) bilingual L1 English (Experiment 2); (c) bilingual L2 Chinese (Experiment 2); (d) bilingual L1 Chinese (Experiment 3); and (e) bilingual L2 English (Experiment 3).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Panels (a) and (b): The bilingual cognitive advantage hypothesis predicts that bilinguals will have better cognitive control than monolinguals, but this control will be unaffected by SOA manipulation, resulting in an overall downward shift in (a) interference and (b) facilitation effects. Panels (c) and (d): The bilingual lexical disadvantage hypotheses predict that earlier negative SOAs will cause more (c) interference and (d) facilitation in the weaker language due to word pre-exposure, such that peak effects will be negatively shifted in the L1 vs. monolinguals and in L2 vs. L1. Panels (e) and (f): A combination of all three hypotheses would lead to a slightly negative shift in bilingual L1, even more of a negative shift in bilingual L2, but still overall reduced (e) interference and (f) facilitation as compared to monolinguals. Monolingual data are based on the interference and facilitation effects from Experiment 1.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Comparison of the magnitude of interference (panels (a)–(e)) and facilitation (panels (f)–(j)) effects in monolinguals, L1 English, L2 Chinese, L1 Chinese, and L2 English.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Mean RTs (ms) after the L2-proficiency split in each bilingual group. (a) low-proficiency English–Chinese bilinguals in L2 Chinese; (b) high-proficiency English–Chinese bilinguals in L2 Chinese; (c) low-proficiency Chinese–English bilinguals in L2 English; (d) high-proficiency Chinese–English bilinguals in L2 English.
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Mean L2 interference effects for each bilingual group split by proficiency. (a) low- vs. high-proficiency English–Chinese bilinguals on the L2 Chinese Stroop task; (b) low- vs. high-proficiency Chinese–English bilinguals on the L2 English Stroop task.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Appelbaum L. G., Boehler C., Won R., Davis L., & Woldorff M. G. (2012). Strategic orientation of attention reduces temporally predictable stimulus conflict. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(9), 1834–1848 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Appelbaum L. G., Meyerhoff K. L., & Woldorff M. G. (2009). Priming and backwards influences in the human brain: Processing interactions during the Stroop interference effect. Cerebral Cortex, 19(11), 2508–2521 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ardal S., Donald M. W., Meuter R., Muldrew S., & Luce M. (1990). Brain responses to semantic incongruity in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 39, 187–205 - PubMed
    1. Barch D. M., Braver T. S., Akbudak E., Conturo T., Ollinger J., & Snyder A. (2001). Anterior cingulate cortex and response conflict: Effects of response modality and processing domain. Cerebral Cortex, 11, 837–848 - PubMed
    1. Bates E., D'Amico S., Jacobsen T., Székely A., Andonova E., Devescovi A., Herron D., Lu C. C., Pechmann T., Pléh C., Wicha N., Federmeier K., Gerdjikova I., Gutierrez G., Hung D., Hsu J., Iyer G., Kohnert K., Mehotcheva T., Orozco-Figueroa A., Tzeng A., & Tzeng O. (2003). Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(2), 344–380 - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources