Do All Switches Cost the Same? Reliability of Language Switching and Mixing Costs

Dorit Segal; Anat Prior; Tamar H. Gollan

doi:10.5334/joc.140

Language-switch costs and dual-response costs in bimodal bilingual language production

Bilingualism Language and Cognition ◽

10.1017/s1366728915000759 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 20 (2) ◽

pp. 418-434 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

EMILY KAUFMANN ◽

ANDREA M. PHILIPP

Keyword(s):

Sign Language ◽

Language Production ◽

Control Mechanisms ◽

Language Switching ◽

Switch Costs ◽

Signed Language ◽

Dual Response ◽

Single Response ◽

Mixing Costs ◽

German Sign Language

In communication, different forms of language combinations are possible for bimodal bilinguals, who use a spoken and a signed language. They can either switch from one language to another (language switching) or produce a word and a sign simultaneously (language blending). The present study examines language control mechanisms in language switching and simultaneous bimodal language production, comparing single-response (German or German Sign Language) and dual-response trials (Blend of the German word and the German Sign Language sign). There were three pure blocks, one for each Target-response (German, German Sign Language, Blend), as well as mixed blocks, in which participants switched between all three Target-responses. We observed language mixing costs, switch costs and dual-response costs. Further, the data pattern showed a specific dual-response advantage for switching into a Blend (i.e., a dual-response trial), indicating the specific nature of a blended response in bimodal bilingual language production.

Download Full-text

Examining language switching in bilinguals: The role of preparation time

Bilingualism Language and Cognition ◽

10.1017/s1366728915000693 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 19 (2) ◽

pp. 415-424 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

MICHELA MOSCA ◽

HARALD CLAHSEN

Keyword(s):

Switching Costs ◽

Language Switching ◽

Preparation Time ◽

Language Control ◽

Mixing Costs

Much research on language control in bilinguals has relied on the interpretation of the costs of switching between two languages. Of the two types of costs that are linked to language control, switching costs are assumed to be transient in nature and modulated by trial-specific manipulations (e.g., by preparation time), while mixing costs are supposed to be more stable and less affected by trial-specific manipulations. The present study investigated the effect of preparation time on switching and mixing costs, revealing that both types of costs can be influenced by trial-specific manipulations.

Download Full-text

The Flip Side of the Auditory Spatial Selection Benefit

Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) ◽

10.1027/1618-3169/a000274 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 62 (1) ◽

pp. 66-74 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Iring Koch ◽

Vera Lawo

Keyword(s):

Task Switching ◽

Auditory Task ◽

Numerical Magnitude ◽

Attention Shifting ◽

Gender Selection ◽

Spatial Selection ◽

Number Words ◽

Switch Costs ◽

Mixing Costs ◽

Experimental Group

In cued auditory task switching, one of two dichotically presented number words, spoken by a female and a male, had to be judged according to its numerical magnitude. One experimental group selected targets by speaker gender and another group by ear of presentation. In mixed-task blocks, the target-defining feature (male/female vs. left/right) was cued prior to each trial, but in pure blocks it remained constant. Compared to selection by gender, selection by ear led to better performance in pure blocks than in mixed blocks, resulting in larger “global” mixing costs for ear-based selection. Selection by ear also led to larger “local” switch costs in mixed blocks, but this finding was partially mediated by differential cue-repetition benefits. Together, the data suggest that requirements of attention shifting diminish the auditory spatial selection benefit.

Download Full-text