Ht 2015
Kandidatuppsats i Psykologi,15 hp
Second language proficiency and its effects on cognitive functions
Relations between bilingualism and tactile and visual versions of the Simon task
Nicole Birbas and Linda Terneborg
SECOND LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ITS EFFECTS ON COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS: RELATIONS BETWEEN BILINGUALISM AND TACTILE
AND VISUAL VERSIONS OF THE SIMON TASK Nicole Birbas and Linda Terneborg
Bilinguals have repeatedly shown to have better results than monolinguals in non-‐verbal cognitive tasks that require inhibition of distracting stimuli. Evidence suggests that this enhanced performance is due to training effects of non domain specific executive functions, and that this gain in cognitive performance can contribute to a cognitive reserve in old age. One of the most frequently used methods when studying the relationship between second language proficiency and cognitive abilities is the Simon task in the visual sensory modality. The present study aimed to determine if the advantage found in the visual Simon task also could apply to a tactile Simon task.
The sample consisted of 40 individuals aged 43 to 64 with different levels in their second language.
An operational span test (OSPAN) was used to control for working memory capacity. No significant correlation was found between bilingualism and the Simon effect in either modality. Since the study has low statistical power and a small range in second language proficiency, it was concluded that further research investigating whether the bilingual advantage found in the visual Simon task can be found across modalities is necessary before any conclusions regarding a relationship between bilingualism and cognitive control can be made.
Flertalet studier visar att individer som talar minst två språk presterar bättre än enspråkiga i icke-‐
verbala kognitiva uppgifter som kräver inhibering av distraherande stimuli. Denna förhöjda prestation kan bero på träningseffekter av icke-‐domänspecifika exekutiva funktioner. Detta kan i sin tur bidra till en kognitiv reserv i hög ålder. Vid undersökningar av sambandet mellan tvåspråkighet och kognitiva förmågor används ofta Simon task i visuell sinnesmodalitet. Den aktuella studien hade till syfte att undersöka om liknande fördelar som hittats i visuell Simon task också kan hittas i en Simon task baserad på den taktila sinnesmodaliteten. Urvalet bestod av 40 individer mellan 43 till 64 år med varierande kunskaper i minst ett andraspråk.
Arbetsminneskapacitet kontrollerades för med ett operational span test (OSPAN). Resultaten i studien visade ingen signifikant korrelation mellan tvåspråkighet och Simon effekt i någon av modaliteterna. Eftersom studien har låg statistisk power och då variationen på den rapporterade kunskapsnivån avseende tvåspråkigheten är begränsad, behövs vidare forskning om huruvida tvåspråkigas förhöjda prestation i visuell Simon task också kan hittas över modaliteter innan slutsatser rörande samband mellan tvåspråkighet och kognitiv kontroll kan dras.
The field of bilingualism has undergone a dramatic change in the past few decades (Homel, Palij & Aaronson, 2014). Based on studies focusing on lexical processing in tasks such as lexical decision (Bialystok & Martin, 2004) and semantic fluency (Bogulski, Rakoczy, Goodman, & Bialystok, 2015), earlier conceptions of bilingualism indicated that it is mainly disadvantageous for the cognitive development and intellectual functioning of the individual (Darcy, 1963). This view was questioned when Peal and Lambert (1962) examined the effects of bilingualism by comparing bilingual and monolingual children’s performance in verbal and non-‐verbal cognitive tasks. The results showed that the bilingual children performed significantly better than the monolingual children. The authors argued that these, at the time, contradictory findings were due to better control over confounding variables. Today approximately half of the world’s population is bilingual or multilingual and the numbers are increasing (Bhaita & Ritchie, 2008), and since studies on the subject frequently exhibit correlations between
bilingualism and cognitive control over attentional functions (Bialystok & Martin, 2004; Zied et al., 2004; Abutalebi, Della Rosa, Green, Hernandez, Scifo, Keim, &
Costa, 2011) the view of bilingualism and its effect on cognitive abilities has come to take a positive turn. Today many studies have reported evidence suggesting that bilingualism can serve as a protection against age-‐related decline such as dementia (Bialystok, Craik & Freedman, 2007; Craik, Bialystok & Freedman, 2010) by giving rise to a cognitive reserve in old age (Bialystok, Craik & Luk, 2012).
When investigating bilingualism and its effect on cognitive functions, the Simon task is the most commonly used measurement. The Simon task aims to measure inhibition (Simon, 1969). In trials where the stimulus and the response do not match in relative spatial location (incongruent), the response is usually less accurate and response time is usually slower than when they do match (congruent). This difference in response time between congruent and incongruent trials is called the Simon effect. Bilinguals have repeatedly been reported to perform better than monolinguals in the Simon task (Bialystok et al., 2004;
Bialystok et al., 2005; Martin-‐Rhee & Bialystok, 2008; Kramer & Mota 2015). This enhanced performance can be explained by a relationship between activating and using more than one language and enhanced cognitive control (Bialystok, 2004).
As explained by Gold, Johnson and Powell (2013) the term cognitive control is the capacity to shape behaviour and thoughts in a flexible way to meet internal goals and demands from the constantly changing environment. In other words cognitive control is essential for proper functioning in every-‐day life, and brain areas associated with the cognitive control system is usually the first ones to show decline in old age. Bialystok et al. (2009) concluded that by operating their languages simultaneously, bilinguals are repeatedly recruiting certain components of the cognitive control system to continuously switch between languages and inhibit unwanted information. Taken together, by learning and using two or more languages bilinguals seem to be training essential parts of their cognitive control system, which seems to help to offset age-‐related losses.
Bialystok et al. (2005) compared bilinguals to monolinguals throughout different age groups across the lifespan in a Simon task. In the study, bilinguals displayed lower Simon effect than monolinguals in early childhood, adulthood, and late adulthood. No difference in performance was found in young adults, explicitly university undergraduates. Since performance is at its peak efficiency during this age, the authors argue that bilingualism offers no additional improvement.
Additionally, Paap and Greenberg (2013) reported three studies using university undergraduates to compare bilinguals’ performance to monolinguals’ in Simon tasks, showing no bilingual advantage.
Even though the Simon effect can be found across different sensory modalities using auditory (e.g. Simon, 1969; Simon & Rudell, 1967), tactile (e.g. Hasbroucq &
Guiard, 1992; Medina, 2006; Salzer, Aisenberg, Oron-‐Gilad, & Henik, 2015) and visual stimuli (e.g. Bialystok et al., 2004), the visual modality has almost solely been used when investigating bilingualism. In the auditory modality both Simon (1969) and Simon and Rudell (1967) found a significant reaction time gap between
congruent and incongruent trials, using different auditory stimuli. In the tactile modality, a significant Simon effect was found by Salzer et al. (2015) by using vibrations stimulating the dorsal part of the torso were applied on the participants, and response was given by pressing a button on either the left or the right side of a keyboard. As for the visual sensory modality, Bialystok et al. (2004) found a significant Simon effect using different colored squares (blue and red) as stimuli presented to the participants on a computer screen.
There is evidence suggesting that executive functions have properties that are not entirely specific to certain sensory modalities (Osaka, Osaka, Kondo, Morishita, Fukuyama, & Shibasaki, 2004; Green, Doesburg, Ward & McDonald, 2011). In the study by Osaka et al. (2004), the participants performed different working memory tasks while having their brain structure and activation-‐pattern scanned in an fMRI camera. The results suggested that there is a general neural basis for executive functions that affect functions in different modalities. Also, Green et al. (2011) used an electrical neuroimaging technique to examine participants’ timing and sequence of activities in different areas in the brain while performing tasks that required focused attention. Results showed that similar regions in the brain were active during visual and auditory shifts of attention, and that the timing of activities within these regions was very similar. The authors argued that these findings indicate that there is a single supra-‐modal network in the brain mediating certain properties of the executive functions. If executive functions are not entirely bound to certain modalities, the evidence that the executive functions involved in language positively influences performance in visual Simon task indicates that a similar effect should be found in Simon tasks using other sensory modalities.
Previous studies have shown a correlation between working memory capacity and performance in tasks that aim to measure executive control functions such as inhibition (Engle & Kane, 2004). In line with this, Bialystok (2015) found that monolinguals and bilinguals differ in performance when tested in working memory tasks. Therefore it is important to control for working memory when measuring inhibition.
The aim of the present study was to investigate if a similar enhanced bilingual performance found in previous studies using visual Simon task, can be found in a Simon task designed for the tactile sensory modality. It was also of interest to compare the results between the modalities.
The hypothesis was that there would be a negative correlation between the degree of second language proficiency and the Simon effect. Individuals who are more proficient in their second language were predicted to display a lower Simon effect in both visual and tactile modality.
Method
Survey participants
A total of 40 individuals, 29 females and 11 males, with a mean age of 53.5 years
Figure 1. The vibratory handles used in the Simon task.
(range 43-‐64 years, SD 6.19) participated in the study. Participants were recruited through billboard flyers put up in common areas in Umeå and e-‐mail invitations sent to individuals employed at Umeå University. Both flyers and letters consisted of a brief introduction to the study's purpose, arrangements and contact information. Participants were offered a 99 SEK compensation for their participation. Exclusion criteria were color blindness, a major head injury and a neurological or psychiatric disorder. In total, data from five participants were excluded from the analysis, three due to incompletion of data and two due to not meeting the inclusion criteria. All participants were unaware of the detailed purpose of the study before completing the test battery.
Instruments and materials
The test was run in a lab setting with two computers (model: HP Compaq Elite 8100 SFF, monitor: HP Compaq LAZ405wg, Windows 7x64), using the experiment library PsychoPy 1.82.01 (Pierce, 2007). To isolate from surrounding noise, headphones (Vic Firth SIH1) were used throughout the whole test battery.
Illustrated in Figure 1, two handles (Ljungberg & Parmentier, 2012) were used in the Simon task. The handles were 136 mm long and 30 mm in diameter, with quadrangular response buttons on the top. Inside of both handles there was a motor causing vibration by spinning on its rotor. In the tactile Simon task the handles were used to produce two vibratory stimuli that differed in amplitude and frequency; 2.3 m/s² (r.m.s.), 33 Hz, and 63 m/s² (r.m.s.), 112 Hz and were delivered one at a time. The handles were controlled by the computer via a control unit, which was connected through a parallel port to the computer. The participants held one handle in each hand and they were used to record answers throughout the whole Simon task.
Simon task
The Simon task was performed in two different modalities, one visual and one tactile condition, with 48 trials each, with an equal distribution between congruent and incongruent trials. It makes a total of 96 trials divided in two blocks. In the visual condition the stimulus was presented as a red or blue square on either the right or left side of the computer screen. In the tactile condition stimulus was presented as a strong or weak vibration in either the right or the left vibratory handle. In both conditions the response was given by pressing the button on either the right or the left vibratory handle depending on the instructions. The Simon effect (SE) was determined by subtracting the response time (RT) of congruent trials from incongruent trials (Welch & Seitz, 2013). A crossover design was used
for the conditions (i.e. visual -‐ tactile and tactile -‐ visual) to control for learning effects that may transfer between modalities. An identical crossover design was also used for instructions (i.e. red = left, blue = right and red = right, blue = left) to eliminate any hand preferences. To detect potential outliers, stem-‐and-‐leaf plots were made for every participants mean accuracy and response time. To avoid any possible training effects and in line with previous research (Bialystok et. al., 2004), only the first 24 trials were included in the analysis.
Working memory test
To control for working memory capacity, a Swedish version of the Operation Span Test (OSPAN) (Unsworth, Heitz, Schrock & Engle, 2005) was used. The test examines working memory capacity by letting participants keep a sequence of letters in memory while simultaneously solving math problems at a minimum level of 85% correct. The test consists of three sets of each set-‐size, ranging from three to seven letters, and makes a total of 75 letters and 75 math problems. The number of elements that the participant could remember in a correct serial order (OSPAN total) was used to measure working memory capacity.
Language questionnaire
The self-‐assessment form Language and Social Background Questionnaire (LSBQ) (Luk & Bialystok, 2013) was used to measure bilingualism (Appendix 1). The LSBQ was translated from English to Swedish, taking both linguistic formulations and layout into consideration. The questionnaire consisted of two parts; Language Background and Community Language Use Behavior. Since the present study assessed language acquisition and usage, only the first part of the questionnaire was considered in the analysis. The participants assessed their own language level and ability in their second language on a scale from 0-‐100, comparing themselves to a proficient speaker of the language in speaking, comprehension reading and writing. They stated how much time (ranging from 1-‐5, “no time” to “all the time”) they spent on using each language when speaking, listening, reading and writing.
The mean of each scale was used as a measure of second language proficiency and time spent using the second language. The two scales used correlated significantly (r = .54, p < .001).
Procedure
A maximum of two participants in each session separated by a screen wall performed the test-‐battery simultaneously. Firstly, the participants were given brief oral information about the study, procedure and instructions for the test-‐
battery. They then read and signed an informed consent where they also could fill in a box and write their email address if they wanted to have the finished result sent to them. After that the Simon task was carried out on a computer. Instructions were shown on the screen before each sequence, preceded by a practice run in which they had to complete eight trials successfully before being permitted to proceed to the actual test. A fixation cross appeared in the middle of the computer screen 800 ms before the onset of the stimulus. After disappearing for 250 ms the stimulus was presented. The stimulus ceased either when response was given or 1000 ms had passed. Before the next trial started a blank screen was shown for
500 ms. The Simon task lasted for about 10 minutes. When finished, the participants moved directly to the OSPAN test. It took approximately 20 minutes to finish. To distract from surrounding noise, headphones were worn throughout both the Simon task and the OSPAN test. Finally, the participants were offered some refreshments while filling out the language questionnaire with pen and paper. The whole test-‐battery took approximately one hour to complete.
Results
Accuracy and RT were calculated for performance in the Simon task for the 24 first trials in each condition. Due to having RT´s below 200 ms, 21 trials (11 congruent, 10 incongruent) were excluded from the analysis. The Stem-‐and-‐Leaf plots for mean accuracy in each condition identified four outliers in the visual condition (extremes <= 50%, N total = 34) and eight outliers in the tactile condition (extremes <= 50%, N total = 28), which were excluded from the analyses due to misunderstanding the instructions of the task. Table 1 shows descriptive statistics from the tests.
Table 1. Accuracy, mean RT and SD for all participants in visual and tactile Simon tasks, and the resulting Simon effect. Self-‐rated second language (LSBQ) proficiency and self-‐estimated time using the language and measured working memory operation span (OSPAN).
Mean accuracy
(%) Mean RT (ms) SD (ms)
Visual Incongruent 93.24 568.84 112.01
Congruent 94.79 515.61 97.52
Simon effect 53.23 67.53
Tactile Incongruent 80.77 728.45 105.88
Congruent 84.90 761.45 92.17
Simon effect -‐41.35 142.03
Second language proficiency
Second language time usage 70.01
2.95 17.91
0.86
OSPAN (total) 46.09 16.08
A partial correlation analysis was made between all the variables listed in Table 1, with working memory operational span as a control. There was no significant
correlation between SE in either the visual or the tactile sensory modality and self-‐
estimated second language proficiency (visual SE, r = -‐.067, p > .05; tactile SE, r = -‐
.297, p > .05). There was also no significant correlation between SE in either the visual or the tactile sensory modality and time spent using the second language (visual SE, r = .020, p >.05; tactile SE, r = -‐.103, p > .05).
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to investigate if a similar bilingual advantage found in previous studies using visual sensory modality Simon task can be found using a tactile sensory modality Simon task. The partial correlation analysis showed no correlation between SE in neither condition and self-‐assessed second language proficiency or time spent using the second language. This finding did not support the hypothesis that there would be a negative correlation between the degree of bilingualism and SE in both modalities. Therefore, no conclusions can be made on whether or not bilingualism has a positive effect on cognitive performance or if it is domain specific or not. Consequently, no conclusions can be made about whether or not bilingualism gives rise to a cognitive reserve in old age and how this reserve is gained.
Since the tactile Simon task rarely has been used before when investigating bilingualism, it was of interest to compare results between the two sensory modalities. The partial correlation analysis displayed inconsistency between the two conditions. The correlation for the visual SE and time spent using the second language actually trended in the opposite direction than expected based on previous studies (e.g. Bialystok et al., 2004; Bialystok et al., 2005; Martin-‐Rhee &
Bialystok, 2008), whereas the trend of the tactile SE follows the same direction.
Also, surprisingly the SE in the tactile condition was reversed; the mean RT for congruent stimulus showed to be greater than the mean RT for the incongruent trials. This means that participants were overall faster in the incongruent trials than in the congruent trials. Evidence presented by Theeuwes, Liefooghe & De Houwer (2014) suggested that the Simon task might be malleable and that stimulus–response associations formed on the basis of instructions can counteract and even generate negative effects of long-‐term stimulus–response associations. In regard to this, one possible explanation to these unconventional results could be that it was an effect from the preceding instructions to the task. Another aspect regarding the reversed tactile SE that was put forth by Appelblad and Sandzén (2015), having investigated the SE in a tactile modality by using vibratory handles as in this study, is that the congruent stimulus occurs in same hand with which correct response is to be given. The authors speculated that this has the potential of minimizing or even reversing the SE. This problem was avoided by Salzer et al.
(2015) by giving the tactile stimulus in from of vibrations on participants back.
The present study’s major limitation regards the sample. Firstly, the study lacks in statistical power. Secondly, the majority of the participants consisted of highly educated university employees, which might have hidden the effect of bilingualism
on the SE since bilingualism and education are both factors that have shown to enhance cognitive control (Kramer & Mota, 2015). Thirdly, all participants assessed themselves on the higher end of the second language proficiency scale, meaning that they all had a high level in their second language and provided similar results to each other. Taken together, this makes it hard to detect potential variance between the participants in SE and degree of bilingualism.
Another aspect worth considering regarding the sample is the different language backgrounds presented. Meaning that the participants differed in what languages they spoke (e.g. Swedish, English, Sami, Greek) and in how many languages they mastered (i.e. bilingual or multilingual). It is reasonable to assume that these factors can have an impact on cognitive performance, and since they were not taken into consideration in the analysis they could have served as confounding variables. However, other studies investigating the effects of bilingualism and cognitive control, displaying significant results, have also used bilingual participants with different language backgrounds. For example Woumans et al.
(2015) used a sample consisting of Dutch, English, French and Spanish speakers.
To conclude, including a larger sample size with participants from different social backgrounds but similar language backgrounds would consequently be beneficial.
A further factor potentially making it hard to detect any individual differences in the ability to inhibit unwanted information in the present study is the in-‐group design used. Previous studies that have found a relation between bilingualism and SE have often used a between-‐group design (e.g. Bialystok et al., 2004; Bialystok et al., 2005; Martin-‐Rhee & Bialystok, 2008), with bilinguals and monolinguals separated in matched groups. Due to the fact that strictly monolinguals are extremely rare in the Swedish contemporary society and arguably even impossible to find, it would not have been possible to use a between-‐group design in the present study, but it might have been beneficial.
Lastly, the instrument used to measure the degree of bilingualism might have negatively influenced the results. Even though it was confirmed in the present study that the Swedish translation of the LSBQ was internally consistent and the English version has been accepted and used before (Luk & Bialystok, 2013), it brings validity issues in terms of subjectivity. The LSBQ language questionnaire is based on self-‐assessment and when participants assess their own language ability, the measurement becomes arbitrary and might not be reliable.
To conclude, due to the fact that no significant result was found in both the modalities and the inconsistency of the variables, the results presented in the present study can be due to a malleable study design, and not to actual modality differences. Therefore the question of whether or not learning and using two or more languages gives rise to training effects on cognitive control and how this works remains. With this in regard, further research investigating whether the bilingual advantage found in visual Simon task can be found across modalities is still necessary.
References
Appelblad, E., & Sandzén, O. (2015). Bilingualism and the Simon Effect: A Multimodal Approach.
Unpublished bachelor thesis. Umeå University.
Abutalebi, J., Della Rosa, P. A., Green, D. W., Hernandez, M., Scifo, P., Keim, R., & Costa, A,. Cappa, S. F..
(2011). Bilingualism tunes the anterior cingulate cortex for conflict monitoring. Cerebral Cortex, 2076-‐2086.
Bhatia, T. K., & Ritchie, W. C. (2008). The Handbook of Bilingualism. John Wiley & Sons.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging, 19(2), 290.
Bialystok, E., & Martin, M. M. (2004). Attention and inhibition in bilingual children: Evidence from the dimensional change card sort task. Developmental Science, 7, 325-‐339.
Bialystok, E., Martin, M. M., & Viswanathan, M. (2005). Bilingualism across the lifespan: The rise and fall of inhibitory control. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9(1), 103-‐119.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., & Freedman, M. (2007). Bilingualism as a protection against the onset of symptoms of dementia. Neuropsychologia, 45(2), 459-‐464.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., Green, D. W., & Gollan, T. H. (2009). Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10(3), 89-‐129.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 240-‐250.
Bialystok, E. (2015). The Impact of Bilingualism on Cognition. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource. 1-‐12.
Bogulski, C. A., Rakoczy, M., Goodman, M., & Bialystok, E. (2015). Executive control in fluent and lapsed bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 561-‐567.
Craik, F. I., Bialystok, E., & Freedman, M. (2010). Delaying the onset of Alzheimer disease Bilingualism as a form of cognitive reserve. Neurology, 75(19), 1726-‐1729.
Darcy, N. T. (1963). Bilingualism and the measurement of intelligence: Review of a decade of research. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 103(2), 259-‐282.
Engle, R. W., & Kane, M. J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-‐factor theory of cognitive control. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 44, 145-‐200.
Gold, B. T., Johnson, N. F., & Powell, D. K. (2013). Lifelong bilingualism contributes to cognitive reserve against white matter integrity declines in aging. Neuropsychologia, 51(13), 2841-‐2846.
Green, J. J., Doesburg, S. M., Ward, L. M., & McDonald, J. J. (2011). Electrical neuroimaging of voluntary audiospatial attention: evidence for a supramodal attention control network. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(10), 3560-‐3564.
Hasbroucq, T., & Guiard, Y. (1992). The effects of intensity and irrelevant location of a tactile stimulation in a choice reaction time task. Neuropsychologia, 30(1), 91-‐94.
Homel, P., Palij, M., & Aaronson, D. (2014). Childhood bilingualism: Aspects of linguistic, cognitive, and social development. Psychology Press.
Kramer, R., & Mota, M. B. (2015). Effects of bilingualism on inhibitory control and working memory:
A study with early and late bilinguals. Gragoatá, 20(38), 309-‐331.
Ljungberg, J. K., & Parmentier, F. B. (2012). Cross-‐modal distraction by deviance. Experimental Psychology, 59(6), 355-‐63.
Luk, G., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Bilingualism is not a categorical variable: Interaction between language proficiency and usage. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 605-‐621.
Martin-‐Rhee, M. M., & Bialystok, E. (2008). The development of two types of inhibitory control in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(01), 81-‐93.
Medina, O. J. (2006). Somatosensory frames of reference. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
Osaka, N., Osaka, M., Kondo, H., Morishita, M., Fukuyama, H., & Shibasaki, H. (2004). The neural basis of executive function in working memory: an fMRI study based on individual differences.
Neuroimage, 21(2), 623-‐631.
Paap, K. R., & Greenberg, Z. I. (2013). There is no coherent evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive processing. Cognitive Psychology, 66(2), 232-‐258.
Peal, E., & Lambert, W. E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs: general and applied, 76(27), 1.
Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy—psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1), 8-‐13.
Salzer, Y., Aisenberg, D., Oron-‐Gilad, T., & Henik, A. (2015). In Touch With the Simon Effect* The first two authors contributed equally. Experimental Psychology, 61, 165-‐179.
Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory SR compatibility: the effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(3), 300.
Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 174.
Theeuwes, M., Liefooghe, B., & De Houwer, J. (2014). Eliminating the Simon effect by instruction.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(5), 1470.
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 498-‐505.
Welch, D. B., & Seitz, A. R. (2013). Processing Irrelevant Location Information: Practice and Transfer Effects in a Simon Task. PloS One, 8(7), 1-‐7.
Woumans, E., Santens, P., Sieben, A., Versijpt, J., Stevens, M., & Duyck, W. (2015). Bilingualism delays clinical manifestation of Alzheimer's disease. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(03), 568-‐
574.
Zied, K. M., Phillipe, A., Karine, P., Valerie, H. T., Ghislaine, A., & Arnaud, R. (2004). Bilingualism and adult differences in inhibitory mechanisms: Evidence from a bilingual Stroop task. Brain and Cognition, 54(3), 254-‐256.
Appendix 1.
SPRÅKLIG BAKGRUND
19. Ange alla språk och dialekter som du kan du tala inklusive svenska:
Språk V Var lärde du dig
språket? Vi Vid vilken ålder lärde du dig det?
(Om inlärt från födseln, skriv ålder "0")
Fanns det perioder i ditt liv då du inte använde det?
(Ange tid i år och månader)
1 □ Hemma □ Skola
□ Samhälle □ Annat:
__________________
2 □ Hemma □ Skola
□ Samhälle □ Annat:
__________________
3 □ Hemma □ Skola
□ Samhälle □ Annat:
_____________________
4 □ Hemma □ Skola
□ Samhälle □ Annat:
___________________
5 □ Hemma □ Skola
□ Samhälle □ Annat:
___________________
20. Ange vilket/vilka språk du oftast hört eller använd i följande perioder i livet, både i och utanför
Endast annat språk
Mestadels annat språk
Hälften svenska / hälften annat språk
Mestadels svenska
Bara svenska
20.1 Tidig barndom □ □ □ □ □
20.2 Förskoleålder □ □ □ □ □
20.3 Grundskoleålder □ □ □ □ □
20.4 Gymnasieålder □ □ □ □ □
20.5 Högskola/universitetsålder □ □ □ □ □
21. Bedöm din språknivå i svenska och andra språk på en skala från 0 till 100. Jämför din språknivå med
21.1 Svenska
21.1 Den tid du spenderar på nedanstående aktiviteter, hur mycket av den tiden genomförs på detta språk?
Ingen tid Lite tid Då och då Mest tid All tid
Tala □ □ □ □ □
Lyssna □ □ □ □ □
Läsa □ □ □ □ □
Skriva □ □ □ □ □
21.2 Annat språk: ____________________________ (ange vilket)
21.2 Den tid du spenderar på nedanstående aktiviteter, hur mycket av den tiden genomförs på detta språk?
Ingen tid Lite tid Då och då Mest tid All tid
Tala □ □ □ □ □
Lyssna □ □ □ □ □
Läsa □ □ □ □ □
Skriva □ □ □ □ □
21.3 Annat språk: ____________________________ (ange vilket)
21.3 Den tid du spenderar på nedanstående aktiviteter, hur mycket av den tiden genomförs på detta språk?
Ingen tid Lite tid Då och då Mest tid All tid
Tala □ □ □ □ □
Lyssna □ □ □ □ □
Läsa □ □ □ □ □
Skriva □ □ □ □ □
21.4 Annat språk: ____________________________ (ange vilket)
21.4 Den tid du spenderar på nedanstående aktiviteter, hur mycket av den tiden genomförs på detta språk?
Ingen tid Lite tid Då och då Mycket tid Alltid
Tala □ □ □ □ □
Lyssna □ □ □ □ □
Läsa □ □ □ □ □
Skriva □ □ □ □ □
22. Övergripande självbedövning:
På det hela taget, hur skulle du beskriva din nivå av tvåspråkighet/flerspråkighet? Ange grad av tvåspråkighet i skalan:
Enspråkig Tvåspråkig/flerspråkig
SPRÅKBETEENDE I SAMHÄLLET
23. Ange vilket/vilka språk du vanligtvis använder när du talar till följande personer.
Endast annat
språk
Mestadels annat språk
Hälften svenska/
hälften annat språk
Mestadel s
svenska
Bara svensk a
Ingen uppgif t
23.1 Föräldrar □ □ □ □ □ □
23.2 Syskon □ □ □ □ □ □
23.3 Mor/farföräldra
r □ □ □ □ □ □
23.4 Andra släktingar □ □ □ □ □ □
23.5 Partner □ □ □ □ □ □
23.6 Rumskamrat/er □ □ □ □ □ □
23.7 Grannar □ □ □ □ □ □
23.8 Vänner □ □ □ □ □ □
Endast annat språk
Mestadels annat språk
Hälften svenska / hälften annat språk
Mestadel s svenska
Bara svensk a
Ingen uppgift
24.1 Hemma □ □ □ □ □ □
24.2 Skola □ □ □ □ □ □
24.3 Arbete □ □ □ □ □ □
24.4 Sociala aktiviteter
(t.ex. umgås med vänner,
biobesök) □ □ □ □ □ □
24.5 Kulturella aktiviteter
(t.ex. konserter, utställningar) □ □ □ □ □ □
24.6 Religiösa aktiviteter □ □ □ □ □ □
24.7 Fritidsverksamhet
(t.ex. hobbys, sport,
volontärarbete) □ □ □ □ □ □
24.8 Kommersiella aktiviteter
(t.ex. shopping,
restaurangbesök) □ □ □ □ □ □
2 24.9 Hälso-‐ och
sjukvårdstjänster/ Statliga verk/ Offentliga kontor/
Bankbesök
□ □ □ □ □ □
24. Ange vilket/vilka språk du i vanligtvis använder i följande situationer.
25. Ange vilket/vilka språk du vanligtvis använder när du utför följande aktiviteter.
Endast annat språk
Mestadels annat språk
Hälften svenska/
hälften annat språk
Mestadels svenska
Bara svenska
Ingen uppgif t
25.1 Läsning □ □ □ □ □ □
25.2 Mailar □ □ □ □ □ □
25.3 SMS □ □ □ □ □ □
25.4 Sociala medier □ □ □ □ □ □
25.5 Skriver inköpslistor,
anteckningar, etc. □ □ □ □ □ □
25.6 TV / radio □ □ □ □ □ □
25.7 Tittar på film □ □ □ □ □ □
25.8 Surfar på internet □ □ □ □ □ □
25.9 Självinstruerande
(dvs. tänker högt) □ □ □ □ □ □
25.10 Ber (religiöst) □ □ □ □ □ □
25.11 Räknar (1, 2, 3..) □ □ □ □ □ □
25.12 Huvudräkning □ □ □ □ □ □
26. Vissa människor växlar mellan de språk de kan inom en och samma konversation (dvs. när de talar på ett språk, kan de använda meningar eller ord från andra språk). Detta är känt som "språkväxling". Ange hur ofta du i vanligtvis utövar språkväxling.
Aldrig Sällan Ibland Ofta Alltid Ingen
uppgift
26.1 Med föräldrar och familj □ □ □ □ □ □
26.2 Med vänner □ □ □ □ □ □
26.3 I sociala medier (t.ex. Facebook, Twitter) □ □ □ □ □ □
26.4 Sociala och kulturella aktiviteter
(t.ex. umgås med kompisar, bio, museum) □ □ □ □ □ □
26.5 Annat (specificera): □ □ □ □ □ □
27. Ange hur väl följande påståenden stämmer med avseende på din språkanvändning.
Instämme r inte alls
Stämmer delvis inte
Instämmer delvis
Instämmer starkt 2 7.1 Jag blandar för det mesta mina språk
när jag interagerar med människor i min
omgivning. □ □ □ □
27.2 Jag föredrar att tala med människor på svenska även om vi är talare av ett
annat gemensamt språk. □ □ □ □
27.3 Jag använder bara mitt/mina andra språk när det är nödvändigt (dvs. med människor som har svårt att förstå svenska).
□ □ □ □
27.4 Att använda andra språk än svenska ses
som positivt i min omgivning. □ □ □ □
27.5 Att blanda/mixa språk inom samma konversation ses som positivt i min
omgivning. □ □ □ □
27.6 Jag känner mig bekväm med att använda mitt mitt/mina andra språk
offentligt. □ □ □ □
27.7 I allmänhet visar inte människor
intresse för min språkbakgrund. □ □ □ □
