研究编码转换类型对认知控制的影响。

IF 2.1 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
Souad Kheder, Rodrigo Mello Medina, Jorge Valdés Kroff, Edith Kaan
{"title":"研究编码转换类型对认知控制的影响。","authors":"Souad Kheder, Rodrigo Mello Medina, Jorge Valdés Kroff, Edith Kaan","doi":"10.1037/xlm0001510","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Code switching, here defined as the use of two languages within a single sentence, has been hypothesized to engage cognitive control such as inhibition and conflict monitoring. The current project investigates whether structurally distinct types of code switching engage cognitive control differently. We tested this in a conflict adaptation paradigm. Early Spanish-English bilinguals in the United States listened to (Experiments 1, 2, 4) or read (Experiment 3) unilingual Spanish sentences and sentences with dense or insertional switches to English. After each sentence, participants saw a Flanker trial and indicated the direction of the center arrow while ignoring the flanking arrows. If processing code switches increases engagement with cognitive control, then subsequent incongruent Flanker trials should demonstrate a reduced Flanker conflict effect. Across four experiments, we found either no effect of code switching on Flanker performance (Experiment 1) or found that the Flanker conflict effect was larger after code switched than after unilingual sentences (Experiments 2-4). We found no evidence that there was a difference between insertional and dense code switching on the Flanker conflict effect or a difference between modalities. We therefore have no evidence that processing code-switched sentences enhances cognitive control. We interpret our finding in terms of resources: Code switches without an interactive context are unexpected and pragmatically odd. This draws resources and attention away from a following Flanker trial, leading to a larger conflict effect after a code switch. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":50194,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigating the effects of code-switch types on cognitive control.\",\"authors\":\"Souad Kheder, Rodrigo Mello Medina, Jorge Valdés Kroff, Edith Kaan\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xlm0001510\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Code switching, here defined as the use of two languages within a single sentence, has been hypothesized to engage cognitive control such as inhibition and conflict monitoring. The current project investigates whether structurally distinct types of code switching engage cognitive control differently. We tested this in a conflict adaptation paradigm. Early Spanish-English bilinguals in the United States listened to (Experiments 1, 2, 4) or read (Experiment 3) unilingual Spanish sentences and sentences with dense or insertional switches to English. After each sentence, participants saw a Flanker trial and indicated the direction of the center arrow while ignoring the flanking arrows. If processing code switches increases engagement with cognitive control, then subsequent incongruent Flanker trials should demonstrate a reduced Flanker conflict effect. Across four experiments, we found either no effect of code switching on Flanker performance (Experiment 1) or found that the Flanker conflict effect was larger after code switched than after unilingual sentences (Experiments 2-4). We found no evidence that there was a difference between insertional and dense code switching on the Flanker conflict effect or a difference between modalities. We therefore have no evidence that processing code-switched sentences enhances cognitive control. We interpret our finding in terms of resources: Code switches without an interactive context are unexpected and pragmatically odd. This draws resources and attention away from a following Flanker trial, leading to a larger conflict effect after a code switch. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001510\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001510","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

代码转换,在这里被定义为在一个句子中使用两种语言,已经被假设参与认知控制,如抑制和冲突监测。目前的项目研究结构不同类型的代码转换是否以不同的方式参与认知控制。我们在冲突适应范例中对此进行了测试。美国早期的西班牙语-英语双语者听(实验1、2、4)或读(实验3)单语西班牙语句子和密集或插入转换为英语的句子。在每个句子之后,参与者看到一个侧面的试验,并指出中心箭头的方向,而忽略侧面的箭头。如果处理代码转换增加了认知控制的参与,那么随后的不一致侧卫试验应该证明侧卫冲突效应减少。在四个实验中,我们发现代码转换对Flanker表现没有影响(实验1),或者发现代码转换后的Flanker冲突效应比单语句子后的Flanker冲突效应更大(实验2-4)。我们没有发现插入和密集编码转换在侧卫冲突效应或模式之间存在差异的证据。因此,我们没有证据表明处理代码转换的句子可以增强认知控制。我们从资源的角度来解释我们的发现:没有交互上下文的代码切换是出乎意料的,而且在实际中是奇怪的。这会将资源和注意力从接下来的侧卫审判中转移出来,导致代码转换后产生更大的冲突效应。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Investigating the effects of code-switch types on cognitive control.

Code switching, here defined as the use of two languages within a single sentence, has been hypothesized to engage cognitive control such as inhibition and conflict monitoring. The current project investigates whether structurally distinct types of code switching engage cognitive control differently. We tested this in a conflict adaptation paradigm. Early Spanish-English bilinguals in the United States listened to (Experiments 1, 2, 4) or read (Experiment 3) unilingual Spanish sentences and sentences with dense or insertional switches to English. After each sentence, participants saw a Flanker trial and indicated the direction of the center arrow while ignoring the flanking arrows. If processing code switches increases engagement with cognitive control, then subsequent incongruent Flanker trials should demonstrate a reduced Flanker conflict effect. Across four experiments, we found either no effect of code switching on Flanker performance (Experiment 1) or found that the Flanker conflict effect was larger after code switched than after unilingual sentences (Experiments 2-4). We found no evidence that there was a difference between insertional and dense code switching on the Flanker conflict effect or a difference between modalities. We therefore have no evidence that processing code-switched sentences enhances cognitive control. We interpret our finding in terms of resources: Code switches without an interactive context are unexpected and pragmatically odd. This draws resources and attention away from a following Flanker trial, leading to a larger conflict effect after a code switch. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
163
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition publishes studies on perception, control of action, perceptual aspects of language processing, and related cognitive processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信