Table 4.

Summary of language group (and language group by age interaction) effects by task.

Task	Summary of language group effects
Executive Function tasks	It was hypothesized that bilinguals would show superior performance on these tasks relative to monolinguals
Stroop task (number of correct responses)	• BI < MF overall • WR & CN: MA, BI < MF; ICN: MF < MA, BI
Stroop interference (difference in number of correct responses)	• WR-ICN : MF > MA, BI • CN-ICN : MF > MA > BI
Simon task (RT)	NO EFFECT OF LANGUAGE GROUP
Simon interference (RT for incongruent—RT for congruent)	• MA > MF
SART (RT)	• MF > MA, BI
Digit span forward (number of correct responses)	• MF & BI: older < young; MA: older = young
Digit span backward (number of correct responses)	• MF: older < young; MA, BI: older = young
WCST (number of categories achieved)	• MF > MA, BI
Language Tasks	It was hypothesized that monolinguals would outperform bilinguals on these tasks
BNT (number of correct items)	• MF, BI < MA
Letter fluency (number of correct items produced)	• MF, BI < MA
Category fluency (number of correct items produced)	• MF < MA

BI = bilingual; MF = monolingual francophones; MA = monolingual anglophones; ICN = incongruent colour naming; CN = colour naming; WR = word reading.