Table 1.
Overview of past studies in which bilinguals and monolinguals were compared with regard to the efficiency of executive control. The table includes a summary of the data on language experience (age of acquisition, proficiency, percentage of usage, relative language balance) of participants if they were provided. The description of participants includes data on combinations of languages that were spoken by the bilingual participants. Such information is missing if groups of bilinguals were heterogeneous and spoke various sets of languages. The table summarizes the results on the efficiency of executive control and the advantage on overall RT across groups.
| Study | Participants | Bilingual age of acquisition | Language proficiency | Bilingual language usage | Relative language balance | Task | Index of executive control effect | Difference between groups in global RTs | Difference in executive control index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bialystok (2006) | (a) 19 video-game players BL (22.2 years) (b) 17 video-game players ML (21.6 years) (c) 30 non-video-game players BL (22.0 years) (d) 31 non-video-game players ML (22.0 years) |
Early Before age 5 |
Self-rating (1–10): at least 6 (spoken L1) | L1 at home, L2 at school or work | Balanced | (i) Simon squares task (ii) Simon arrows task |
(i) Incongruent vs. congruent trials (ii) Incongruent vs. congruent trials |
(i) No (ii) Yes (in high-switch condition only) |
(i) No (ii) No |
| Bialystok (2010) | Study 1 (a) 26 BL (6.0 years) (b) 25 ML (6.1 years) Study 2 (a) 25 BL (5.8 years) (b) 25 ML (5.8 years) Study 3 (a) 25 BL (6.1 years) (b) 25 ML (6.0 years) |
Study 1, 2, 3 Early From birth or schooling |
Study 1 PPVT-III score (English) (a) 104.2 (b) 107.8 Study 2 PPVT-III score (a) 104.3 (b) 105.0 Study 3 PPVT-III score (a) 100.9 (b) 107.7 |
Study 1 five-point scale (1 = mostly L1, 5 = mostly L2): 3.6 Study 2 five-point scale (1 = mostly L1, 5 = mostly L2): 3.2 Study 3 five-point scale (1 = mostly L1, 5 = mostly L2): 2.0 |
Study 1, 2, 3 Balanced |
Study 1, 2, 3 (i) Trail-making task (ii) Global-local task |
Study 1, 2, 3 (i) Trails B vs. Trails A (ii) Incongruent vs. congruent trials |
Study 1, 2, 3 (i) Yes (ii) Yes |
Study 1, 2, 3 (i) No (ii) No |
| Bialystok et al. (2005a) | (a) 10 French–English BL (b) 9 Cantonese–English BL (c) 10 English ML (29.0 years) |
Early From early childhood |
Bilinguals’ L2 fluency equivalent to monolinguals | L1 at home, L2 at school | Balanced | Simon task | Incongruent vs. congruent trials | Yes (for Cantonese–English BL vs. ML only) | No |
| Bialystok et al. (2004) | Study 1 (a) 10 mid-age Tamil–English BL (43.0 years) (b) 10 mid-age English ML (43.0 years) (c) 10 older Tamil–English BL (72.3 years) (d) 10 older English ML (71.6 years) |
Study 1 Later in childhood From age 6 Study 2 Later in childhood From age 6 |
Study 1 PPVT-R score: (English) (a) 91.8 (b) 91.0 (c) 91.9 (d) 85.8 |
Study 1 44.0% (L1) 56.0% (L2) Study 2 51.7% (L1) 48.3% (L2) Study 3 50.0% (L1) 50.0% (L2) |
Study 1, 2, 3 Balanced |
Study 1, 2, 3 Simon task |
Study 1, 2, 3 Incongruent vs. congruent trials |
Study 1 Yes Study 2 Yes (in three conditions only) Study 3 Yes (in blocks 1–7 only) |
Study 1 Yes Study 2 Yes Study 3 Yes (in blocks 1–4, 8–9 only) |
| Study 2 (a) 32 mid-age Tamil–English (20) or Cantonese–English (12) BL (42.6 years) (b) 32 mid-age English ML (42.6 years) (c) 15 older English–Tamil (9) or English–French (6) BL (70.2 years) (a) 15 older English ML (70.4 years) Study 3 (a) 10 French–English BL (40.6 years) (b) 10 ML English (38.8 years) |
Study 3 Early From childhood |
Study 2 PPVT-III score: (a) 86.0 (b) 85.4 (c) 81.4 (d) 79.7 Study 3 PPVT-III score: (a) 91.0 (a) 89.1 |
|||||||
| Bialystok et al. (2008) | (a) 24 young BL (19.7 years) (b) 24 young ML (20.7 years) (c) 24 older BL (68.3 years) (d) 24 older ML (67.2 years) |
(a) Early Before age 6 (c) Late Before age 20 |
Self-rating (0–4): (a) 3.15 (L1) 3.83 (L2) (c) 3.65 (L1) 3.79 (L2) |
Used both L1 and L2 daily | Balanced | (i) Simon arrows task (ii) Stroop color-naming task |
(i) Incongruent vs. congruent trials (ii) Incongruent vs. congruent trials |
(i) No (ii) No |
(i) No (ii) Yes |
| Bialystok et al. (2006) | Study 1 (a) 24 young BL (20.8 years) (b) 24 young ML (20.7 years) (c) 24 older BL (71.3 years) (d) 24 older ML (70.4 years) Study 2 a) 24 young BL (23.9 years) b) 24 young ML (25.6 years) c) 24 older BL (64.5 years) d) 24 older ML (66.9 years) |
Study 1, 2 a) Early About age 6 c) Late About age 12 |
Not reported | Study 1, 2 L1 at home, L2 at school or work |
Study 1, 2 Balanced |
Study 1, 2 Faces/modified anti-saccade task |
Study 1, 2 (i) Response suppression: red vs. green eye trials (ii) Inhibitory control: conflicting gaze vs. supporting gaze trials |
Study 1 No Study 2 Yes (for older BL vs. older ML, in three conditions only) |
Study 1 (i) No (ii) No Study 2 (i) Yes (ii) Yes (for older BL vs. older ML, in RTs only) |
| Bialystok and Martin (2004) | Study 1 (a) 31 Chinese–English BL (4.9 years) (b) 36 English ML (4.9 years) |
Study 1, 2, 3 Early From birth |
Study 1 PPVT-R score: (English) (a) 87.8 (b) 112.2 Study 2 |
Study 1 L1 at home, L2 at school and in the community |
Study 1, 2, 3 Balanced |
Study 1 Computerised dimensional change card sort |
Study 1, 2, 3 Number of correct post-switch trials |
RTs not reported | Study 1, 2, 3 Yes |
| Study 2 (a) 15 French–English BL (4.6 years) (b) 15 English ML (5.1 years) Study 3 (a) 26 Chinese–English BL (4.4 years) (b) 27 English ML (4.2 years) |
PPVT-R score: (a) 89.6 (b) 110.8 Study 3 PPVT-R score: (a) 84.3 (b) 109.7 |
Study 2 Both L1 and L2 at home, L2 at school Study 3 L1 at home, L2 at school and in the community |
Study 2, 3 Manual dimensional change card sort |
||||||
| Bialystok et al. (2005a) | Study 1 (a) 17 French–English BL (b) 17 English ML (5 years) Study 2 (a) 18 French–English BL (b) 22 English ML (5 years) Study 3 (a) 56 BL (b)40 ML (20–30 years) Study 4 (a) 10 mid-age BL in India (b) 10 mid-age ML in Canada (30–59 years) (c) 10 older BLin India (d) 10 older ML in Canada (60–80 years) |
Study 1, 2, 3 Early From birth Study 4 Later in childhood |
Study 1 PPVT-R score: (English) ML > BL EVIP score: L1 proficiency equivalent to L2 Study 2 PPVT-R score: ML > BL Study 3 Not reported Study 4 PPVT-R score ML = BL |
Study 1, 2, 3 L1 at home, L2 in the community Study 4 Used both L1 and L2 daily |
Study 1, 2, 3, 4 Balanced |
Study 1, 2 Simon task for children Study 3 Simon task with control condition Study 4 Simon task from Study 1, 2 |
Study 1, 2, 3, 4 Incongruent vs. congruent trials |
Study 1, 2 Yes Study 3 No Study 4 Yes |
Study 1, 2, 3, 4 No |
| Bialystok and Viswanathan (2009) | (a) 30 BL in Canada (8.5 years) (b) 30 BL in India (8.6 years) (c) 30 ML in Canada (8.5 years) |
Early From birth |
PPVT-III score: (English) (a) 100.0 (b) 96.3 (c) 111.9 |
(a) 46% (L1) 54% (L2) (b) 53% (L1) 47% (L2) |
Balanced | Faces/modified anti-saccade task | (i) Response suppression: red vs. green eye trials (ii) Inhibitory control: gaze shift vs. straight eye trials |
No | (i) No (ii) Yes |
| Carlson and Meltzoff (2008) | (a) 12 English–Spanish BL (6.0 years) (b) 21 English–Spanish (13) or Japanese–English (8) BL in language immersion (5.8 years) (c) 17 English ML (6.3 years) |
(a) Early From birth (b) Later in childhood |
EOWPVT-SBE score: (a) 100.0 (b) 136.0 (c) 135.0 |
(a) Both L1 and L2 at home, L2 with friends (b) L1 at home and half day at school, L2 for half day at school |
(a) Balanced (b) Dominant in L1 |
(i) Children's attention network test (ii) Advanced dimensional change card sort |
(i) Incongruent vs. congruent trials (ii) Number of correct conflict trials |
RTs not reported | (i) No (ii) Yes |
| Colzato et al. (2008); Experiment 1 | (a) 16 Dutch–English BL (22 years) (b) 16 Spanish ML (22 years) Experiment 1 |
Early From birth Experiment 1, 2 Early From early childhood |
Self-rating (1–10): 8.9 | Used both L1 and L2 daily | Balanced | Stop signal task | Inhibition of response | No | No |
| Costa et al. (2009) | (a) 60 Catalan–Spanish BL (20.1 years) (b) 60 Spanish ML (20.0 years) Experiment 2 (a) 62 Catalan–Spanish BL (20.1 years) (b) 62 Spanish ML (20.7 years) |
Not reported | Experiment 1 seven-point scale (1 = only L2, 7 = only L1): 5.3 Experiment 2 Seven-point scale (1 = only L2, 7 = only L1): 5.0 |
Experiment 1, 2 Balanced |
Experiment 1 Attention network test (i) 8% congruent (ii) 92% congruent Experiment 2 Attention network test (i) 50% congruent (ii) 75% congruent |
Experiment 1, 2 Incongruent vs. congruent trials |
Experiment 1 (i) No (ii) No Experiment 2 (i) Yes (ii) Yes (in block 1 only) |
Experiment 1 (i) No (ii) No Experiment 2 (i) No (ii) Yes (in block 1 only) |
|
| Costa et al. (2008) | (a) 100 Catalan–Spanish BL (22 years) (b) 100 Spanish ML (22 years) |
Early From early childhood |
Self-rating (1–4): 4.0 (L1) 3.9 (L2) |
Seven-point scale (1 = only L2, 7 = only L1): 5.1 | Balanced | Attention network test | Incongruent vs. congruent trials | Yes | Yes (in blocks 1–2 only) |
| Emmorey et al. (2008) | (a) 15 English ML (50.1 years) (b) 15 bimodal BL (46.2 years) (c) 15 unimodal BL (47.0 years) |
(b) Early 0.9 years c) Later in childhood 6.1 years |
Self-rating (1–5): (b) 4.5 (L1) 4.6 (L2) (c) 4.5 (L1) 3.1 (L2) |
Used both L1 and L2 daily | (b) Balanced (c) Dominant in L1 |
Flanker task with baseline, neutral, congruent, and incongruent conditions | Incongruent vs. congruent trials | Yes (for unimodal bilinguals only) | No |
| Hernandez et al. (2010); Experiment 1 | (a) 41 Catalan–Spanish BL (20.9 years) (b) 41 Spanish ML (21.4 years) |
Early From early childhood |
Not reported | Seven-point scale (1 = only L2, 7 = only L1): 5.1 | Balanced | Numerical Stroop task | (i) Stroop interference: incongruent vs. neutral trials | Yes-tendency p = 0.061 | (i) Yes (ii) Yes |
| Luk et al. (2010) | (a) 10 BL (20 years) (b) 10 ML (22 years) |
Later in childhood From age 6 |
Self-rating (1–10): 7.1 (L1) 7.8 (L2) PPVT-III score: (English) (a) 94.8 (b) 105.8 |
Used both L1 and L2 regularly | Balanced | Flanker task with baseline, neutral, congruent, and incongruent conditions | (ii) Stroop facilitation: neutral vs. congruent trials Incongruent vs. congruent trials |
No | No |
| Martin-Rhee and Bialystok (2008) | Study 1 (a) 17 French–English BL (5.0 years) (b) 17 English ML (4.7 years) Study 2 (a) 21 BL (4.6 years) (b) 20 ML (4.5 years) |
Study 1, 2 Early From birth |
Study 1 PPVT-R score: (a) 89.6 (L1) (b) 111.4 EVIP score: (a) 98.8 (L2) Study 2 PPVT-R score: (a) 86.4 (b) 96.4 |
Study 1, 2 Both L1 and L2 at home, L2 at school |
Study 1, 2 Balanced |
Study 1 Simon task (i) Immediate response (ii) Short delay (iii) Long delay Study 2 (i) Simon task (ii) Stoop picture naming task |
Study 1, 2 Incongruent vs. congruent trials |
Study 1 (i) Yes (ii) No (iii) No Study 2 (i) Yes (ii) No |
Study 1 (i) No (ii) No (iii) No Study 2 (i) No (ii) No |
| Marzecová et al. (submitted for publication) Morton and Harper (2007) |
(a) 18 BL (23.5 years) (b) 17 ML (20.0 years) |
Early Before age 4 Early From birth Early Before age 6 (a) 17 French–English BL (6.9 years) (b) 17 English ML (6.9 years) |
Self-rating (1–7): 6.9 (L1) 6.3 (L2) PPVT-R score: (a) 100.3 (L1) (b) 110.1 EVIP score: (a) 97.8 (L2) |
53% (L1) 32% (L2) 15% (L3) 58.3% (L1) 41.7% (L2) |
Balanced Balanced |
Lateralised attention network test Simon task |
Incongruent vs. congruent trials Incongruent vs. congruent trials |
No (but overall advantage in ERR) No |
Yes (in RT only; tendency in ERR, p = .08 ) No |
| Prior and MacWhinney (2010) | (a) 44 BL (19.5 years) (b) 44 English ML (18.7 years) |
Self-rating (1–10): (a) 7.8 (L1) 9.3 (L2) (b) 9.3 (L1) 3.1 (L2) PPVT-III score: (a) 102.30 (L2) (b) 109.95 (L1) |
(a) 27% (L1) 73% (L2) (b) 97% (L1) 3% (L2) |
Dominant in L2 | Task switching paradigm (a) Color task (b) Shape task |
(i) Switching cost: switch trials vs. non-switch trials (ii) Mixing cost: mixed task blocks vs. single task blocks |
Not reported | (i) Yes (in RT only) (ii) No |
|
| Soveri et al. (2010) | (a) 17 mid-age Finnish–Swedish BL (40.1 years) (b) 18 mid-age Finnish ML (38.5 years) |
Early Before age 7 |
Self-rating (0–6): (a) 5.8 (L1) 5.7 (L2) (b) 5.9 (L1) 3.2 (L2) (c) 5.5 (L1) 5.8 (L2) |
Used both L1 and L2 actively throughout life | Balanced | Forced-attention dichotic listening task | Identification of targets presented to either left (forced-left condition) or right | RTs not reported | Yes |
| (c) 16 older Finnish–Swedish BL (66.0 years) (d) 14 older Finnish ML (67.6 years) |
(d) 5.9 (L1) 3.7 (L2) |
(forced-right condition) ear | |||||||
| Present study | (a) 36 early Chinese–English BL (18.9 years) (b) 30 late Chinese–English BL (20.8 years) (c) 34 English ML (20.4 years) |
(a) Early 0.3 years (b) Late 16.2 years |
Self-rating (1–7): (a) 3.6 (L1) 6.6 (L2) (b) 6.8 (L1) 4.9 (L2) |
(a) 25% (L1) 75% (L2) (b) 59% (L1) 40% (L2) (c) 1% (L3) |
(a) Strongly dominant in L2 (b) Moderately dominant in L1 |
Lateralised attentional network task | Incongruent vs. congruent trials | Yes (for early BL vs. ML only) | Yes (in RT only for early BL vs. ML; in ERR only for early vs. late BL; in both RT and ERR for late BL vs. ML) |
BL, bilinguals; ML, monolinguals; PPVT-III, peabody picture vocabulary test – Third Edition; PPVT-R, peabody picture vocabulary test – Revised; EVIP, echelle vocabulaire en images peabody; EOWPVT-SBE, expressive one-word picture vocabulary test – Spanish bilingual edition.