Target facilitation and competitor inhibition are strongly correlated in both groups¶

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 Residual target facilitation and competitor inhibition were positively correlated in bilinguals (r = .5, p = .003) and monolinguals (r = .6, p = .001). → 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 of priming-probe latencies in the same study. "A strong relationship between response latencies on competitor priming probes ... and response latencies on target priming probes ... was found in both bilinguals (r = .5, p = .003) and monolinguals (r = .6, p = .001)".

"A strong relationship between response latencies on competitor priming probes (measuring residual inhibition of preceding competitors) and response latencies on target priming probes (measuring residual activation of preceding targets) was found in both bilinguals (r = .5, p = .003) and monolinguals (r = .6, p = .001)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Monolinguals but not bilinguals show residual inhibition of phonological competitors on negative-priming probes — related
• Monolinguals and bilinguals show similar within-language competitor activation during auditory word recognition — related
• Higher Spanish proficiency in bilinguals is associated with less residual competitor inhibition — related
• Stroop inhibition correlates with linguistic competition resolution in bilinguals but not monolinguals — related
• Competitor activation relates to negative priming at different time windows in monolinguals and bilinguals — related