It has been claimed that bilingualism enhances inhibitory control, but the available evidence is equivocal. The authors evaluated several possible versions of the inhibition hypothesis by comparing monolinguals and bilinguals with regard to stop signal performance, inhibition of return, and the attentional blink. These three phenomena, it can be argued, tap into different aspects of inhibition. Monolinguals and bilinguals did not differ in stop signal reaction time and thus were comparable in terms of active-inhibitory efficiency. However, bilinguals showed no facilitation from spatial cues, showed a strong inhibition of return effect, and exhibited a more pronounced attentional blink. These results suggest that bilinguals do not differ from monolinguals in terms of active inhibition but have acquired a better ability to maintain action goals and to use them to bias goal-related information. Under some circumstances, this ability may indirectly lead to more pronounced reactive inhibition of irrelevant information.

This study aimed to explore non-verbal executive processes in simultaneous interpreters. Simultaneous interpreters, bilinguals without any training in simultaneous interpreting, and control monolinguals performed the Wisconsin card sorting task (WCST; Experiment 1) and the Simon task (Experiment 2). Performance on WCST was thought to index cognitive flexibility while Simon task performance was considered an index of inhibitory processes. Simultaneous interpreters outperformed bilinguals and monolinguals on the WCST by showing reduced number of attempts to infer the rule, few errors, and few previous-category perseverations. However, simultaneous interpreters presented Simon effects similar to those found in bilinguals and monolinguals. Together, these results suggest that experience in interpreting is associated with changes in control processes required to perform interpreting tasks.

Growing evidence shows that executive functioning benefits from bilingual experience. However, the nature of the mechanisms underlying this advantage remains to be clarified. Whereas some have put forward single process accounts to explain the superior performance of bilinguals relative to monolinguals in executive control tasks, recent findings have been interpreted by considering the dynamic combination of monitoring and inhibitory processes to overcome interference from distractor information. In the present study we explored this idea by comparing monolinguals and highly proficient bilinguals in the AX-CPT. This task requires individuals to adjust proactive (monitoring) and reactive (inhibition) control to achieve efficient performance. We also examined the extent to which a well-known index of inhibitory capacity, the stop-signal reaction time, predicts accuracy in the AX-CPT. Results showed that bilinguals outperformed monolinguals in the experimental condition where higher requirement of proactive-reactive control adjustment was required. Interestingly, the inhibition index predicted errors in this condition only in the sample of bilinguals. These findings suggest that a better understanding of the cognitive benefits of bilingualism may require consideration of how bilinguals adjust different executive control mechanisms to cope with interference.