ArticleThe international journal of bilingualism : cross-disciplinary, cross-linguistic studies of language behavior2020
When It's Harder to
Article in The international journal of bilingualism : cross-disciplinary, cross-linguistic studies of language behavior, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Language experience influences performance on the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery: A cluster analysis.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2025Article
- Predictors of language proficiency and cultural identification in heritage bilinguals.Frontiers in communication · 2022Article
- How a picture becomes a word: individual differences in the development of language-mediated visual search.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
AIMS AND
objectivesImagine you're driving and you become so distracted by the radio that you miss your turn. Which is more likely to have caught your attention, a broadcast in your native tongue or one in your second language? The present study explores the effect of language proficiency on our ability to inhibit irrelevant phonological information. METHODOLOGY: Participants were asked to identify which of two drawings changed color while ignoring irrelevant words in either their native language, English, or a less proficient language, Spanish. The drawings appeared on screen for either 200 or 2000ms prior to word-onset, which was followed 200ms later by a color-change. On critical trials, the irrelevant word shared phonological features with the label of the non-target drawing. Trials were blocked by preview time and language. DATA AND ANALYSIS: Reaction time data from 19 bilinguals were analyzed utilizing generalized linear mixed-effects models, with fixed effects of Competition (competitor vs. control), and Language (English vs. Spanish) and random effects for Subject and Item within each preview window. FINDINGS/
conclusionsNo interference was observed when participants heard their native tongue in either preview condition. However, participants in the long-preview condition were significantly slower to respond when there was phonological competition in their less proficient language, despite the fact that the task required no language processing. ORIGINALITY: Past work has indicated that languages are processed more automatically and cause greater interference as proficiency increases. We propose that though higher-proficiency languages may receive greater activation overall, lower-proficiency languages may be more likely to exogenously capture attention due to both relatively greater salience, and relatively less control. SIGNIFICANCE: The present findings have implications for how we understand the dynamic relationship between language proficiency, activation, and inhibition, suggesting that the salience of the less familiar influences our ability to ignore irrelevant information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.