ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026
Language switches can be monitored but not fully controlled: Eye-tracking evidence for syntax-driven language control.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
When reading aloud mixed-language paragraphs, bilinguals occasionally produce language intrusions, that is, they translate written switch words to avoid producing them overtly. Intrusions provide evidence about the nature of language control, which refers to how bilinguals maintain control over which language they speak. The present study compared eye movements for successful versus unsuccessful switches during reading aloud of mixed-language paragraphs to reveal the cognitive mechanisms underlying language control failures. Forty-eight English-dominant Spanish-English bilinguals read aloud four stories four times (once each in English-only, Spanish-only, English mixed-language, and Spanish mixed-language conditions). Mixed-language paragraphs included ten language switches (five content words, five function words). Though they elicited the most intrusion errors, dominant-language function (but not content) words elicited more frequent regressive eye movements on successful switches versus intrusions, indicating heightened monitoring of the most error-prone switch targets. Additionally, there was no evidence that inattention to dominant-language switches drove their relatively larger elicitation of intrusions - bilinguals skipped and gazed at switch words to similar extents in both languages, and regressed more often to dominant-language than nondominant-language switches regardless of whether they switched successfully or not. These results confirm the vulnerability of dominant-language function words to language control failures, and reveal that these failures occur despite increased, but ultimately only partially successful, attempted monitoring. More broadly, these results reinforce proposals that different retrieval mechanisms underlie production of function versus content words, but challenge claims that function words cannot be monitored at the level of planned production prior to production of overt speech.
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.