Stroop inhibition correlates with linguistic competition resolution in bilinguals but not monolinguals¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Bilinguals showed a negative correlation between Stroop effect and competitor priming (r = −.5, p = .004). → Blumenfeld Henrike K.; Marian Viorica 2011 q3 i? Monolinguals showed no significant correlation between Stroop inhibition and competitor inhibition (r = −.1, p = .591). → Blumenfeld Henrike K.; Marian Viorica 2011

Evidence¶

Blumenfeld Henrike K.; Marian Viorica 2011¶

Blumenfeld Henrike K.; Marian Viorica. (2011). Bilingualism influences inhibitory control in auditory comprehension. Cognition. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3582323/

q3 · i3 · associational · r2

Correlation analysis in the same 60-participant study relating Stroop RT differences to negative-priming competitor inhibition. "Bilinguals showed a negative correlation between Stroop inhibition and competitor priming (r = −.5, p = .004)". Monolinguals showed no significant correlation (r = −.1, p = .591).

"Bilinguals showed a negative correlation between Stroop inhibition and competitor priming (r = −.5, p = .004; see Fig. 5B), suggesting that more efficient Stroop inhibition was associated with less inhibition of the linguistic competitor"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Bilinguals show a marginally smaller Stroop effect and higher overall Stroop accuracy than monolinguals — related
• Competitor activation relates to negative priming at different time windows in monolinguals and bilinguals — related
• Monolinguals but not bilinguals show residual inhibition of phonological competitors on negative-priming probes — related
• Higher Spanish proficiency in bilinguals is associated with less residual competitor inhibition — related
• Target facilitation and competitor inhibition are strongly correlated in both groups — related