1. Relating bilingualism and language proficiency in Relating bilingualism and language proficiency in executive attention: Comparison of children and adults executive attention: Comparison of children and adults Sujin Yang, Soon Park & Barbara Lust Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. USA ( Email: sy98@cornell.edu)sy98@cornell.edu presented at the Language Acquisition and Bilingualism Conference, May, 2006, Toronto, Ontario, Canada The present study examined whether the relationship of English language proficiency is stronger than that of bilingualism in its effects on executive attention as measured in the Attention Network Test (ANT) ( Rueda, Fan, McCandliss, Halparin, Gruber, Lercari, & Posner, 2004; Fan, McCandliss, Sommer, Raz, & Posner, 2002 ). 1.Bilingual cognitive advantages would appear in the Attention Networks Test (ANT). 2. Higher proficiency would be more positively relevant to monolinguals than to bilinguals in terms of beneficial effects of executive attention 3. The beneficial effects would be persistent till adulthood and children and adults would behave similarly. Participants: 30 4 years olds (15 Korean-English bilinguals, 15 monolinguals) and 76 college students (38 Korean- or Chinese-English bilinguals & 38 monolinguals) Tasks : PPVT (proficiency) + ANT (child +adult versions) 1. Bilingual cognitive advantages in executive attention as measured on the ANT were reconfirmed for both children and adults (Bialystok, 1988) 2. High English proficiency was beneficial to monolingual children (Accuracy) and monolingual adults only (Conflict Resolution) 3. Positive effects of bilingualism were persistent from children to adults 4. Bilingual cognitive advantages in executive attention may be more related to language experience in general than language proficiency. ++ + Fixation T1=400~ 1600 Cue 150 ms + + * Fixation 450 ms Target RT < 1700 Feedback 2000 ms + Fixation 3400 – RT -T1 → → → Procedure of the ANT Incongruent Congruent 3 Flanker Types No Cue + Central Cue Double Cue Spatial Cue + * * + * 4 Warning Cue Types * Neutral Cues and Flankers Conditions English Proficiency: PPVT Proficiency Children (N)Adults (N) MonolingualBilingualMonolingualBilingual High127121125121 Low10390113106 Total11998120111 Accuracy (%) Children Accuracy (%) Adults RT (ms) Children Adults * P <.02 Adult ANT Network Efficiency MonolingualBilingual ProficiencyAlertOrientConflictAlertOrientConflict High 3944120403099 Low 32471354534101 Total 36451264232100 Monolinguals > Bilinguals (Children & Adults) ps <.000 High > Low (Children & Adults) ps <.005 ** Overall Accuracy on the ANT Monolinguals < Bilinguals (Children only) p <.001 High > Low (Monolingual children only) p <.02 ** Overall Reaction Times on the ANT Network Efficiency Subtractions: Alerting Efficiently: Central cue RTs - no cue RTs Orienting Efficiency: Spatial cue RTs - center cue RTs Conflict Resolution Efficiency: Incongruent RTs -Congruent RTs Monolinguals < Bilinguals (in orient & conflict) ps <.000 High > Low (in conflict resolution)-Monolinguals only p <.008 Background Hypotheses Methods Results Monolinguals < Bilinguals (Adults only) p <.007 High > Low (B-High > M-High & Low) p <.02 High > Low (B-Low > M-High & Low) p <.07, p <.05 High ≈ Low (M-High & Low, B-High & Low) ps = n.s. Conclusions References Bialystok, E. (1988). Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness. Developmental Psychology, 24, 560-567. Fan, J., McCandliss, B.D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M.I. (2002). Testing the Efficiency and Independence of Attentional Networks, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 340-347. Rueda, M.R., Fan, J., McCandliss, B.D., Halparin, J.D., Gruber, D.B., Lercari, L.P., & Posner, M.I. (2004). Development of Attentional Networks in Childhood. Neuropsychologia, 42, 1029-1050. ** ** Overall English Language Proficiency ** Network Efficiency Scores on the ANT