Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology /

Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale

ISSN: 1196-1961 2022, Vol. 76, No. 1, 29–43
© 2022 Canadian Psychological Association https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000268

Automaticity and Cognitive Control in Bilingual and

Translation Expertise
Giulia Togato1, Pedro Macizo2, 3, and Teresa Bajo2, 3
1
RGRLL Department, The Think2Talk Lab/Office AS-323, California State University Long Beach
2
Mind, Brain and Behavior Research Center (CIMCYC), Granada, Spain
3
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Granada

It has been observed that different linguistic experiences might exert a differential effect on general cognitive
processes. For example, research has shown that language control in professional translation differs from
language control applied to other types of bilingual activities. The present study focuses on the construct of
automaticity and aims at determining whether different linguistic experiences might modulate the balance
between automaticity and cognitive control at the general cognitive level. Hence, monolinguals, bilinguals,
and professional translators performed a memory search task that has extensively been employed to observe
how automaticity is acquired through consistent practice. Comparisons between the groups showed overall
differences in the ease with which the task was performed and, importantly, differences in both automaticity
and cognitive control. Specifically, monolinguals showed higher levels of automaticity in the learning phase
of the task, while bilinguals and professional translations carried out the task in a more controlled fashion.
This pattern might have implied higher cognitive costs for the monolingual group when a switched learning
condition was presented. Possibly due to previous control over the initial learning phase, bilinguals and
translators were less affected by the cognitive costs associated to the reversal of the learning condition.
Differences are explained in terms of professional translation and everyday bilingual practice.

Public Significance Statement

The present study explores how different linguistic experiences might modulate the balance between
automaticity and cognitive control at the general cognitive level. It is suggested that when asked to
search in memory for learned items, monolinguals showed higher levels of automaticity in performance
after extensive practice; on the contrary, bilinguals and professional translators seemed to exert control
over the memory search despite practice. This pattern might have caused higher cognitive costs for
monolinguals when they were asked to switch to a new learning condition and higher flexibility to adapt
to the new task requirements in the case of bilinguals and translators.

Keywords: automaticity, cognitive control, bilingualism, translation, interpreting

Over the last decades, linguistic and nonlinguistic cognitive
differences between bilinguals and professional translators have
been extensively and thoroughly observed in the literature (e.g.,
Babcock & Vallesi, 2015, 2017; Christoffels et al., 2003, 2006;
Henrard & Van Daele, 2017; Padilla et al., 2005; Rosiers et al.,
2019; Van de Putte et al., 2018; Van der Linden et al., 2018; Yudes
et al., 2011, 2012; see Kroll et al., 2018 for a review). Overall,
research has shown that bilingualism is a dynamic phenomenon and
Giulia Togato https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2280-1856
Teresa Bajo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2996-8261
This work has been supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education:
Project EDU2008-01111 granted to Teresa Bajo. The index of materials
is available at: https://osf.io/fzaq7/?view_only=2aff1dc0b5ec4b66870d5aa
8df362d1b.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Giulia
Togato, RGRLL Department, The Think2Talk Lab/Office AS-323, Cali-
fornia State University Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, CA
90815, United States. Email: giulia.togato@csulb.edu
different types of bilingualism might imply visible differences in
how people handle their two languages. For example, language
control in professional translation differs from language control
applied to other types of bilingual activities. Specifically, it has been
suggested that whereas the usual challenge for bilinguals is to reduce
the activation of the nonrequired language, the challenge for trans-
lators is to keep their two languages active at a given time in order to
efficiently perform the translation task. This fact could possibly lead
to the engagement of different control processes for diverse bilin-
gual interactional contexts. Empirical data seem to support this idea,
showing that interpreters, for example, do not always employ
inhibitory processes to control their languages as most bilinguals
seem to do (e.g., Ibáñez et al., 2010) and that different control
mechanisms are enhanced by professional practice (Morales,
Padilla, et al., 2015; Yudes et al., 2012). Converging patterns of
data have been observed at the neurocognitive level and researchers
have attributed anatomical changes to the extreme language control
that takes place during training in the interpreting activity. To
illustrate, it has been observed that interpreters undergo plastic
changes in specific control-related brain networks, namely the
frontal–basal ganglia subnetwork (related to domain-general and

29
30 TOGATO, MACIZO, AND BAJO
language-specific cognitive control), the cerebellum, and the sup-
plementary motor area (related to language control; Van de Putte
et al., 2018). Hervais-Adelman et al. (2015a) also observed that
simultaneous interpreting, compared to shadowing in the same
language, distinctively engages the activity of this distributed
network.
Hence, professional translation might modulate different compo-
nents of the language system, and the data available so far strengthen
the idea that bilingualism and translation reorganize differently the
functioning of certain brain structures in response to specific
linguistic experiences. While the great majority of studies focused
on the executive control component, the automatic construct in
bilingual language processing has been neglected despite playing an
important role in language processing (Levelt, 1989). In the present
study, we aimed at shedding some light on the type of cognitive
activities referred to as automatic and we focused on the question of
whether automatic processes engaged in translation tasks are the
same that support automaticity at the general cognitive level.
There is evidence that automaticity is a necessary step in skill
development in a variety of activities, including reading (e.g.,
LaBerge & Samuels, 1974), athletic conditioning (e.g., Fisher &
Jensen, 1990), and problem-solving in fields such as mathematics
(e.g., Gagne, 1983), science (e.g., Hasselbring et al., 1987; Larkin
et al., 1980), medicine (e.g., Elstein et al., 1978; Fox, 1980), and
chess (e.g., Chi et al., 1981). Like other well-practiced skills, we
assume that translation becomes gradually less effortful because of
practice, leading to faster and more efficient performance. The
evidence that supports this idea proceeds from three main lines
of research.
First, research on skill acquisition (e.g., Ericsson, 2006) has
shown that the balance between automaticity and cognitive control
in any given performance shows an initial increase toward cognitive
control as learners reach an acceptable level of achievement. As
soon as individuals adapt to the demands imposed by the task, their
behavior will require less and less attentional control (e.g., Ericsson,
2006; Samuels et al., 1978). At the same time, as the subjects’
behavior is automatized, it becomes fixated, and individuals lose
their conscious control over the ability to intentionally modify that
behavior. Under these circumstances, additional practice will not be
associated with any improvement or learning. Consequently, the
correlation between the amount of experience and performance will
be low for this type of automated activity. In direct contrast, expert
performance continues to improve as a function of more experience
and deliberate practice. In fact, the key challenge to reach expertise
is to avoid the arrested development associated with automaticity
and to acquire cognitive skills to support continued learning and
improvement (Ericsson, 2006). Thus, the acquisition of expertise in
a specific domain requires the appropriate balance between the
automaticity of some aspects of the task and the cognitive control
over some others (e.g., Chi, 2006; Ericsson, 2006). Along similar
lines, the aim of the present research is to identify the differences in
the balance between automaticity and cognitive control according to
three different language experiences (and interactional contexts):
monolingualism, bilingualism, and training in translation.
Second, studies on L2 language acquisition suggest that auto-
matic processing of some language components is an important step
in achieving fluency. Encoding of morphological and grammatical
features such as gender and number agreement, verb conjugation,
etc. becomes gradually automatic when individuals learn a language
(Chambers, 1997). The development of automatized mechanisms
decreases the load imposed on L2 processing; consequently, as long
as demanding efforts are required to produce accurate morphology,
less cognitive resources are available for other planning tasks and
this is reflected in disrupted discourse (Chambers, 1997); as these
features are processed in an effortless automatic manner, fluency
increases with language performance containing longer segments
and uninterrupted speech (e.g., Bartning et al., 2009; Towell
et al., 1996). According to Segalowitz (e.g., Segalowitz, 2010;
Segalowitz & Lane, 2000), but also Hulstijn et al. (2009) and
Rodgers (2011), advantages associated to practice and experience
in the L2 include faster lexical decision times, faster rates of
speaking and reading, and better ability to process rapid speech,
together with increased performance.
Third, it has been pointed out that automatic language processing
is an important component of professional translation: When the
subprocesses underlying the task are automatized, more resources
are available to process those aspects that require attention and
temporary storage of information for translation (De Groot, 2000).
Following this idea, in the present work, translation is tackled
adopting a componential approach (for similar assumptions, see
De Groot, 2000 and PACTE Group, 2000; for discussion, Shreve,
2002, 2006), meaning that it is regarded as a complex skill com-
prising many subskills whose automatization would enhance global
performance. In other words, as expressed by De Groot (2000), if
automaticity is acquired in as many of the task components as
possible, global performance is boosted since all resources can be
directed toward other effortful components of the task (e.g., infer-
ences, cross-sentence integration of information, temporary storage
in short-term memory that is required for higher-level processes).
In line with this reasoning, Gile (1995, 1997, 2017) identified
three main components—or Efforts—needed to perform the trans-
lation task: the effort linked to the processing of the input in the
Source Language (SL); the short-term memory effort; the produc-
tion effort in the Target Language (TL) and, finally, a coordination
effort, which is needed to handle the other three efforts. The term
“effort” refers to the nonautomatic nature of these components. Each
effort has specific processing capacity requirements. To perform the
task efficiently, total capacity requirements should not exceed the
total available capacity (Gile, 1995, 1997). As a way to decrease the
processing load imposed by the efforts, translators routinize (i.e.,
automatize) the computational operations underlying the task in
such a way that more cognitive resources are available for the
coordination effort to act efficiently over the whole process. Coher-
ently, in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study by
Hervais-Adelman et al. (2015b), it was observed a decreased
engagement of the right caudate nucleus during simultaneous
interpretation of simple sentences after training (confirmed through
postscan interviews), in line with the idea that expertise is at the root
of a reduced use of cognitive resources, due to increased automa-
ticity (e.g., Ericsson et al., 2006).
Hence, it seems that the demands imposed by professional
translation tasks are different than those required for untrained
uses of language, and that optimum performance in professional
translation requires a proper balance between automaticity and
control. To our knowledge, there is only one study that has
empirically investigated the construct of automaticity in translation.
Hvelplund (2016) employed pupil size as an index of automaticity
while participants translated texts from English to Danish. It was
 AUTOMATICITY AND CONTROL IN BILINGUALS AND TRANSLATORS
observed that expert translators’ pupil size was overall reduced
compared to less-expert translators, revealing that experienced
translators seem to rely more on automatic processing compared
to less experienced ones, confirming the observations proposed by
De Groot (2000) and Gile (1995, 1997). The author interpreted the
observed pattern stating that automaticity arises because expert
translators have developed specific schemata that get activated in
situations where familiar translation problems are detected.
Therefore, stronger reliance on automaticity in linguistic tasks
performed by professional translators has already been observed in
the literature. The underlying assumption of the present study is that
monolinguals, untrained bilinguals, and professional translators
might also differ in the balance between automaticity and cognitive
control in nonverbal tasks tapping the same mechanisms recruited
for language use, similar to what has been investigated in the studies
focusing on executive control. This assumption stems from the idea
that the computational processes needed to perform a linguistic task
adapt to the demands imposed on individuals by different interac-
tional contexts and generalize to other domains recruiting the same
processes (e.g., Bialystok, 2006; Costa et al., 2008; Green &
Abutalebi, 2013). In other words, our interest here lies in investi-
gating whether the balance between automaticity and control
observed in linguistic tasks performed by professional translators
might generalize to automaticity at large.
The Present Study
To explore this hypothesis, we compared monolinguals, bilin-
guals, and professional translators in a consistent practice (CP)
memory search task (e.g., Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977; Shiffrin &
Schneider, 1977; Wolfe, 1994; Wolfe et al., 2013). This task has
been extensively used in the past to study the effect of learning,
practice, and the shift from controlled to automatic processing (e.g.,
Nosofsky et al., 2014; Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977; Wolfe et al.,
2015). In the present study, a set of characters (letters), called the
Memory-set (e.g., BDGH), was presented to participants to memo-
rize the stimuli (i.e., first slide of each trial). The Memory-set Size
varied between 1 and 4 letters. In the second part of the trial,
participants were presented with a sequence of 19 rapid slides (2 s
each), containing four elements (either targets, distractors, or dot
masks) arranged on a square around a central no-signaled fixation
dot, and they were asked to search for the possible occurrence of any
of the letters included in the Memory-set (targets). The participants
pressed the space bar each time that the probe matched any of the
letters included in the Memory-set. Using this task, Shiffrin and
Schneider observed that reaction time (RT) was dependent on the
Memory-set Size during the first trials, in such a way that RTs
increased proportionally to the number of letters included in the set.
Their results also showed that after many trials of CP in which the
memory search was constrained to a fixed set of letters that never
appeared as distractors, the Memory-set Size effect decreased,
revealing that searching strategies had changed in the process of
being automatized. Although there is some controversy regarding
the nature of the retrieval set size effect and its dependence on
memory load (e.g., Sternberg, 2016; Townsend & Fifić, 2004;
Wolfe, 1994), and on whether CP leads to item learning or category
learning (see Cao et al., 2017), the reduction of the Memory-set Size
effect in CP procedures is consistently considered a hallmark of how
automaticity develops in memory retrieval and how it can develop
31
through other forms of cognition. In other words, this procedure and
the Memory-set Size manipulation will allow us to explore the
capacity to restructure the cognitive resources underlying the task in
the process of automatizing memory retrieval. To the extent that the
Memory-set Size effect is present, it can be inferred that the memory
search is being carried out with attentional control, whereas a drop in
the slope relating Memory-set Size and response times would
indicate that the search strategy has changed in the process of
automatization (for a similar approach, see Cao et al., 2017).
In the present study, the CP memory search task was used in
relation to the view that automatic processing (including automatic
processing in translation) is based on memory retrieval for past
solutions (Logan, 1991); it is posited, hence, that the practice
underlying efficient retrieval from memory in this task is analogous
to the mechanisms trained through translation practice. The starting
assumption is that translation competence is a problem-solving
process whose efficiency is based on routinization and, conse-
quently, on a more efficient retrieval of familiar past solutions
(either integrally or partially overlapping). In the memory search
task, the participant compares each memory-set item to the probe
item, similarly to the way in which the translator compares each new
translation problem to stored past solutions for that specific problem,
looking for a match or an adaptable solution. By consequence, we
put forward the idea that the memory search task used here would
tap, at a general cognitive level, the same mechanisms triggered by
automaticity in translation tasks (see Hervais-Adelman et al., 2015a,
2015b; Hvelplund, 2016, for similar approaches).
With the goal of confirming that the automaticity observed was
reflecting an actual restructuring of the cognitive processes under-
lying the task, the coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated as a
function of groups at the beginning of the experiment and at the end
of the training/practice trials (1,500 trials). Segalowitz (e.g.,
Segalowitz & Hulstijn, 2009; Segalowitz & Segalowitz, 1993)
proposed that the CV captures the reorganization, routinization,
or bypassing of serial execution of component processes underlying
the task. This index ensures that the observed change in the memory
process is not merely due to a speedup of the component processes,
but to a more stable way of handling them. Faster performance may
reflect a general speedup of the processes involved in a task, which
does not necessarily imply that these processes are performed in a
steady manner. As claimed in Segalowitz and Hulstijn (2009), when
faster performance reflects automatic and stable processes, they do
have to be accompanied by a reduction in standard deviation (SD).
To be more specific, an automatic and stable process would be
associated to a reduction in SD that is more than proportional to the
reduction in RT (e.g., Segalowitz et al., 1995). Hence, in the present
study, we calculated the CV to assess to what extent the cognitive
processes underlying the task were performed in an automatic and
stable manner due to CP.
Finally, in order to assess between-group differences in atten-
tional control and flexibility, a switch point was inserted on trial
1,500, where the letters employed were switched between the target
and distractor sets: Participants had to search in memory for those
letters that appeared as distractors in the previous chunk of trials. We
choose this specific point (trial 1,500) because Shiffrin and
Schneider (1977) found that after 1,500 practice trials, the memory
search was already accomplished in an automatic manner.
We expected translators to exhibit higher flexibility in attentional
control, in such a way that the switch in the stimuli sets employed
32 TOGATO, MACIZO, AND BAJO

should affect their performance to a lesser degree compared to mono-
linguals. To the extent that the attentional abilities developed by
translators are related to their bilingualism, we expected to achieve
similar results for the bilingual participants; nevertheless, if translation
ability differs from bilingualism, the two groups should show different
patterns of results, at least in terms of magnitude of the observed effects.
Method
Participants
Thirty-six participants took part in the experiment (12 in each
group: monolinguals, bilinguals, professional translators). The
sample size required in the present study was determined using
G*Power, Version 3.1.9.4 (Faul et al., 2007). It was calculated
that for a 3 × 3 multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
with Group (monolinguals, bilinguals, and translators) and
Memory-set Size (1, 2, and 4 elements) as factors, to achieve
80% statistical power with α = .05 and an effect size of .25, the
total sample size needed was N = 36. Participants were selected
according to the following criteria: (a) translators owned a degree
in Translation and Interpreting Studies and had a minimum of
3 years’ experience as in-house translators; (b) bilinguals had
no specific training in translation tasks; (c) a specific combination
of languages was not a requisite to participate in the experiment.
As for monolinguals, they were psychology student at the
University of Granada and Jaen.
Although, if one adopts a wide definition of bilingualism, it is
practically impossible to find fully monolingual individuals due to L2
instruction at school, our monolingual participants were selected so that
their reported proficiency level and their daily experience with lan-
guages other than Spanish were very low, and therefore they were
functionally monolinguals. They were Spanish native speakers who
reported that their only exposure to L2 (English) was the grammar
classes (English) received as part of their secondary education in high
school (3 hr/week). However, the inclusion criteria for the monolingual
group were as follows: (a) they had no contact (or very limited contact)
with any other language different from Spanish on a daily bases,
including their average use of L2 (watching TV in L2, reading in L2, or
writing in L2; see Table 1); (b) their last contact with a foreign language
was only related to high school instruction; (c) they had never received
any L2 instruction apart from regular education; and (d) they had never
obtained an official L2 certification.
As in other studies on bilingualism and cognitive control (e.g.,
Bellegarda & Macizo, 2021; Paap et al., 2019), bilinguals and

Table 1
Characteristics of Participants in the Study

Self-evaluation items Monolinguals Bilinguals Translators

Demographic characteristics
Gender 10 women/2 men 10 women/2 men 11 women/1 man
Handedness 12 right-handed 10 right-handed 12 right-handed
0 left-handed 2 left-handed 0 left-handed
Age (years) 23.50 (1.78) 23.67 (2.19) 26.58 (1.44)
Postsecondary education (years) 3.17 (1.27) 3.08 (1.56) 4.67 (1.23)
Language history
Start L1 learning (years) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
Start L2 learning (years) 11.33 (1.56) 5.50 (5.14) 5.08 (2.97)
Months in L2 country 0.00 (0.00) 27.67 (38.68) 22.00 (16.15)
Mean experience in professional translation 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 5.33 (2.01)
(years)
Language proficiency
L1 speech comprehension 9.42 (1.38) 10 (0.00) 10 (0.00)
L1 writing proficiency 9.25 (1.48) 9.75 (0.45) 9.92 (0.29)
L1 speech fluency 9.25 (1.42) 9.92 (0.29) 9.92 (0.29)
L1 reading ability 9.50 (1.00) 9.83 (0.39) 9.92 (0.29)
L1 mean proficiency 9.35 (1.29) 9.88 (0.25) 9.96 (0.10)
L2 speech comprehension 4.50 (0.80) 9.75 (0.45) 9.25 (0.75)
L2 writing proficiency 4.58 (0.66) 9.25 (0.97) 9.17 (0.83)
L2 speech fluency 3.83 (0.71) 9.25 (0.97) 9.25 (0.62)
L2 reading ability 4.91 (0.79) 9.67 (0.49) 9.42 (0.79)
L2 mean proficiency 4.44 (0.69) 9.39 (0.65) 9.28 (0.69)
Language use
Watching TV in L1 31.83 (10.84) 7.42 (6.32) 12.25 (10.92)
Reading in L1 19.00 (11.75) 11.50 (11.00) 14.17 (11.66)
Writing in L1 24.17 (9.48) 5.50 (5.14) 13.25 (14.66)
Mean L1 use 25.00 (9.30) 8.14 (4.81) 13.22 (11.31)
Watching TV in L2 0.08 (0.29) 4.00 (3.98) 7.83 (9.65)
Reading in L2 0.25 (0.45) 7.83 (7.98) 9.58 (9.89)
Writing in L2 0.00 (0.00) 5.92 (5.78) 5.42 (3.94)
Mean L2 use 0.11 (0.22) 5.92 (5.34) 7.61 (6.90)
Note. Mean scores for the self-evaluation questionnaire on L1 and L2 competence are reported. Self-report language proficiency ratings for L1 and L2 ranged
from 1 to 10, being 1 “not fluent” and 10 “very fluent.” Standard deviations are reported in brackets. Language use ratings for L1 and L2 are reported in hours per
week.
 AUTOMATICITY AND CONTROL IN BILINGUALS AND TRANSLATORS 33

translators spoke a variety of languages as their mother tongue and Design

their second language. Thus, in the bilingual group, eight participants
reported Spanish as their native language (English as their second); one
participant was a native speaker of English (Spanish was the second
language); one participant was a native speaker of Arabic (L2 =
Spanish); one participant was a native speaker of German (L2 =
Spanish); another participant was a native speaker of Romanian
(L2 = Spanish). Within the group of translators, 10 participants
reported to have Spanish as their L1 (for 8 of them, the L2 was
English; for 1 of them, French; for 1 of them, German). Within the same
group, one participant had German as the L1 and Spanish as the L2;
another participant had Romanian as L1 and Spanish as L2.
Bilinguals and translators received a participation payment,
whereas monolinguals took part in the experiment in exchange
for course credits in psychology classes. The study was included in
the protocol “Cognitive Processes in Bilingual Participants”
approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of
Granada (protocol code: 738; date of approval: 2012). Before
performing the task, participants filled in a self-rating questionnaire
(Macizo & Bajo, 2006; Macizo et al., 2010), in which they had to
rate their speech fluency, speech comprehension, writing and read-
ing skills (a copy of the questionnaire is available at Open Science
Framework [OSF], see final index for links). The questionnaire
provided useful information about their language background both
in the L1 and L2 and other demographic details (all means and SD
are reported in Table 1). Monolinguals, bilinguals, and translators
did not differ on measures of L1 language proficiency (speech
comprehension, writing proficiency, speech fluency, reading ability,
and mean proficiency; all p values > .05). Monolinguals differed
from bilinguals and translators on measures of L2 proficiency
(speech comprehension, writing proficiency, speech fluency, read-
ing ability, and mean proficiency) and age of onset of L2 acquisition
(all ps < .05). However, L2 proficiency and age of L2 acquisition
were equated in the bilingual and translator groups (all ps > .05), at
least through self-report measures.
Three independent variables were manipulated in the present study.
First, the number of letters included in the Memory-set (presented
before the beginning of each trial); it was 1, 2, or 4. This variable is
known as Memory-set Size and it was manipulated within participants.
The second variable was the experimental group (monolinguals,
bilinguals, and professional translators), a between-group variable.
Finally, the third variable was the Segment (initial vs. reversed) and
was manipulated within participants. The basic dependent variables
were the mean RTs, percentage of accuracy in target detection
(Accuracy), and the CV of the participants’ responses through the
blocks, which were employed as indexes of automaticity.
Materials and Procedure
The experiment material was constructed following the original
experiment by Shiffrin and Schneider (1977). As reported in Figure 1,
for the first 1,500 initial learning trials, two sets of stimuli were
created: The first one included the letters belonging to the first part of
the alphabet (B, C, D, F, G, H, J, K, L) which served as targets; the
stimuli configuring the Memory-set Size of each trial were selected
among these items. The second stimuli set, the distractor set, included
the letters belonging to the second part of the alphabet (N, P, Q, R, S,
T, V, X, Z). The final 300 trials, labeled as reversed learning,
presented the reversed target–distractor condition, being “N, P, Q,
R, S, T, V, X, Z” (second part of the alphabet) the targets, and “B, C,
D, F, G, H, J, K, L” (first part of the alphabet) the distractors. Both
targets and distractors were assigned to trials randomly.
As indicated in Figure 2, after the first to-be-memorized frame
(self-paced), a sequence of 19 rapid frames (i.e., slides) was pre-
sented on each trial. The first frame included the targets to be
memorized arranged on a row (e.g., BCGJ). Each of the following
19 frames consisted of four elements arranged on a square around a
central nonsignaled fixation dot. The elements presented could be
letters or random dot masks. They were arranged as follows: (a) two

Figure 1
Structure of the Experiment

Note. For the first 1,500 trials (Segment A, five blocks), the letters belonging to the first part of the alphabet (B, C, D, F, G, H, J, K, L)
were used as targets, while the letters belonging to the second part of the alphabet (N, P, Q, R, S, T, V, X, Z) were employed as
distractors. After the switch point, the reversed target–distractor condition was presented (Segment B, one block), being “N, P, Q, R, S,
T, V, X, Z” the targets, and “B, C, D, F, G, H, J, K, L” the distractors. Adapted from “Controlled and Automatic Human Information
Processing: II. Perceptual Learning, Automatic Attending and a General Theory,” by R. M. Shiffrin and W. Schneider, Psychological
Review, 84(2), 127–190 (https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127). Copyright 1977 by the American Psychological Association.
34 TOGATO, MACIZO, AND BAJO

Figure 2
Structure of One Trial

Note. A sequence of 20 frames was presented on each trial. The first frame contained the Memory-set
participants had to memorize (1, 2, or 4 elements, arranged in a row). Each following frame (lasting 2 s each)
consisted of four elements arranged in a square around a central no-signaled fixation dot. The elements presented
could be letters or random dot masks. They were ordered as follows: (a) two letters (target and distractor when the
target was present or two distractors in the nontarget condition along with (b) two sets of dot masks (:: ; ::).
Targets appeared on 60% of trials. The position of targets, distractors, and dot masks on the square varied
randomly throughout trials. Adapted from “Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: II.
Perceptual Learning, Automatic Attending and a General Theory,” by R. M. Shiffrin and W. Schneider,
Psychological Review, 84(2), 127–190 (https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127). Copyright 1977 by the
American Psychological Association.

letters (target and distractor when the target was present or two
distractors in the no-target condition along with) and (b) two sets of
dot masks (:: ; ::). The position of targets, distractors, and dot masks
on the square varied randomly throughout trials. The font used was
Courier New 36 points; the stimuli box presented the elements on a
6 cm distance square. The frame time (the time from the onset of one
frame to the onset of the next) was for all, but the first, 2 s (Shiffrin &
Schneider, 1977). The frame time was kept constant over all trials.
No item or mask was ever presented in the same display position
in two successive frames. Targets appeared randomly in 60% of
the trials.
The experiment was presented on a 17 in. laptop screen using
E-Prime software (Schneider et al., 2002). Participants seated
approximately at 55 cm distance from the screen; their responses
were collected using a computer keyboard. Each trial began with
the presentation of the Memory-set (memorizing phase). Timing
for the memorizing phase was self-paced. Participants entered the
following phase (the searching phase) by pressing the space bar.
The task consisted in detecting any element of the Memory
-set that appeared in the sequence of frames by pressing the
space bar. Hence, participants were required to press the space
bar only in the presence of a previously memorized target (i.e.,
“yes frames”). RTs and accuracy were recorded only when the
participants pressed the space bar on the keyboard. Participants
were encouraged to take frequent breaks and were asked to
maintain the highest level of accuracy while performing the
task. Overall, they completed 1800 trials attending to four
experimental sessions on 4 different days; the first three sessions
included 500 trials and lasted 4 hr each; the last one included 300
trials and lasted about 3 hr. Each participant performed a 15-hr
task. The first three sessions (Segment A) were labeled as initial
learning, while the last one (Segment B) was defined as reversed
learning condition. Between Segments A and B, a switch condi-
tion was presented, reversing the link between target and dis-
tractor sets. The two sets were counterbalanced within the groups.
Participants were not informed about the switching point inserted
between the initial and reversed learning conditions. The mas-
terfiles containing the output raw data (Togato et al., 2022) have
been de-identified and are available for future explorations by
other researchers (see OSF link).
 AUTOMATICITY AND CONTROL IN BILINGUALS AND TRANSLATORS
Results
The trials were grouped in blocks of 300. The initial five blocks
corresponded to the initial learning condition, whereas Block 6 was
the reversed learning condition. Since we were interested in observ-
ing the direction of the slope as a consequence of practice (i.e., by
comparing initial performance, Block 1 vs. performance after
extensive practice, Block 5 and performance after the switch, Block 6),
in the different analyses, we directly compared Blocks 1, 5, and 6. Hence,
we had the same number of trials in each block, facilitating compar-
isons among the different practice conditions. We first report Accu-
racy, followed by RT and the C V index.
Accuracy Analyses
These analyses focused on the percentage of correct detections (i.e.,
accuracy) as a function of memory load in responding to the presence of
targets in the memory search task. Hence, we performed a 3 × 3 × 3
mixed-design analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Group (monolin-
guals, bilinguals, and translators), Memory-set Size (1, 2, and 4
elements) and Block (Initial practice in Block 1, Final practice in
Block 5, and Reversed Learning in Block 6) as factors. The only
significant interaction in the main ANOVA was the two-way interac-
tion between Block × Memory-set Size, F(4, 132) = 36.68, p < .001,
η2p = .52, In Block 1, increments in Memory-set Size were associated to
a general and gradual decrement in the percentage of correct detections
for all participants. In Block 5, a low and medium memory load did not
affect accuracy in the three groups; on the contrary, a high memory load
(Memory-set Size 4) impacted accuracy and caused a decrease in the
percentage of correct detections in all groups. In Block 6 the increment
in the Memory-set Size caused a decrease in the percentage of correct
detections for all participants. Finally, the switch from Block 5 to Block
6 affected the accuracy in target detection of all groups. Group did not
interact with any other variable (all ps > .05), indicating that the
memory load affected the accuracy of all groups in the same direction
throughout the experiment. Descriptive statistics for Accuracy are
available as online materials (see final index for OSF links).
Reaction Time Analyses
These analyses as well as the analyses performed on CV (CV
analyses reported in the next section) were carried out considering
exclusively correct responses (provided for “yes frames”) to the
presence of the target in the memory search (36%). Although the
percentage of hits is low, it cannot be interpreted as reflecting chance
performance or lack of cognitive effort in performing the task. If the
participants were guessing (or, somehow, not meaningfully per-
forming the cognitive task) “their behavior would not be related to
their performance” (Jost, 2021, for this argument), contrarily to what
we observed in the present study. Moreover, low accuracy ranges
have been observed in similar tasks for specific manipulations and
conditions (e.g., Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977).
RTs were first analyzed using a 3 × 3 × 3 mixed-design ANOVA
with Group (monolinguals, bilinguals, and translators), Memory-set
Size (1, 2, and 4 elements) and Block (Initial practice in Block 1, Final
practice in Block 5, and Reversed Learning in Block 6) as factors. The
two-way interaction Group × Block was significant, F(4, 66) = 4.71,
p = .002, η2p = .22 (see Figure 3). Planned comparisons employed
to explore this interaction revealed that at the beginning of the
35
experimental session (Block 1), bilinguals were, overall, faster
than translators, F(1, 33) = 5.07, p = .03, η2 = .13, and monolinguals,
F(1, 33) = 7.12, p = .01, η2 = .17. RT differences were not significant
between monolinguals and translators (p > .05). In Block 5, both
bilinguals F(1, 33) = 6.45, p = .01, η2 = .16 and translators F(1, 33) =
4.98, p = .03, η2 = .13 were faster than monolinguals, and there were
not significant differences between them (p > .05). Finally, in Block 6,
bilinguals F(1, 33) = 18.8, p < .001, η2 = .36 and translators F(1, 33) =
15.81, p < .001, η2 = .32 were significantly faster than monolinguals,
with no differences between them (p > .05).
This interaction was qualified by the three-way interaction Group ×
Memory-set Size × Block, since it was significant, F(8, 132) = 2.41,
p = .01, η2p = .12. We further analyzed this interaction by performing a
3 × 3 mixed ANOVA with Group (monolinguals, bilinguals, and
translators) as between-groups factor and Memory-set Size (1, 2, and
4 stimuli) as within-participants factor for each block. Thus, we
evaluated both the effect of the Memory-set Size and practice on
the RTs of monolinguals, bilinguals, and translators at the beginning
of the experiment (Block 1), after a large amount of CP had been
carried out (Block 5), and after the switching point was introduced to
produce the reversed learning condition (Block 6). This interaction is
depicted in Figure 4.
Block 1 (First 300 Trials of the Initial Learning Condition)
The analysis yielded a significant main effect for Memory-set
Size, F(2, 66) = 72.95, p < .001, η2p = .68, and Group, F(2, 33) =
4.13, p = .02, η2p = .20. Nevertheless, the Group × Memory-set
Size interaction did not reach significance, F(4, 66) = 1.59, p = .18,
η2p = .08. Increments in Memory-set Size were associated to a
general and gradual increment in the RT for all groups.
Block 5 (300 Last Trials of the Initial Learning Condition)
Analyses in this block indicated that there was a main effect for
the Memory-set Size, F(2, 66) = 41.75, p < .001, η2p = .55. The main
Figure 3
Effect of Practice on the Overall RTs of Monolinguals, Bilinguals,
and Translators in Block 1, Block 5, and Block 6
Note. Significant differences: • Block 1: Bilinguals were faster than mono-
linguals and translators. • Block 5: Bilinguals and translators were faster than
monolinguals. Block 6: Monolinguals were slower than bilinguals and transla-
tors; monolinguals were slower than in Block 1. Bars represent Standard Error.
RTs = reaction times. See the online article for the color version of this figure.
36 TOGATO, MACIZO, AND BAJO
Figure 4
Effect of the Memory-Set Size on the RTs of Monolinguals, Bilin-
guals, and Translators in Block 1, Block 5, and Block 6
Note. In Block 1, the increase in the Memory-set Size was associated to a
general and gradual increasing of the RTs in all groups. In Block 5, it affected
the performance of bilinguals and translators but did not affect the monolin-
gual performance. In Block 6, the increase in the Memory-set Size was
associated to a general and gradual increasing of the RT in all groups. Bars
represent Standard Error. RTs = reaction times. See the online article for the
color version of this figure.
effect of Group was significant, F(2, 33) = 3.84, p = .03, η2p = .18,
and a significant Memory-set Size × Group interaction, F(4, 66) =
4.90, p = .001, η2p = .22, indicated that Memory-set Size affected
significantly the RTs of bilinguals, F(2, 22) = 27.98, p < .001, η2 =
.71, and professional translators, F(2, 22) = 49.54, p < .001, η2 =
.81; however, the memory load did not affect the monolingual
performance, F(2, 22) = 1.04, p = .36, η2 = .08.
Block 6 (300 Trials of Reversed Learning Condition)
Analyses in Block 6 (note that this block represents trials after the
switch point) showed a main effect for Memory-set Size, F(2, 66) =
29.89, p < .001, η2p = .47, indicating that an increase in the Memory-
set Size was associated to an increase in RTs and a significant main
effect of Group, F(2, 33) = 11.58, p < .001, η2p = .41. The interaction
between the two factors did not reach significance, F(4, 66) = 1.40,
p = .24, η2p = .07, suggesting that the memory load affected the RTs
of all groups.
Switch Effect Between Initial and Reversed Learning
To test the effect that the switch point had on the performance of
the three groups, data were analyzed through a 3 × 2 mixed
ANOVA, being Group the between-groups factor (monolinguals,
bilinguals, and professional translators) and Switch (participants’
total mean RT in Blocks 5 and 6) the within-participants factor. The
analysis yielded a significant main effect of Group, F(2, 33) = 9.31,
p < .001, η2p = .36, Switch, F(1, 33) = 57.702, p < .001, η2p = .63,
and the interaction between these two factors was also significant,
F(2, 33) = 3.22, p = .05, η2p = .16. One-way ANOVAs conducted in
order to evaluate the switch effect in the three groups separately
revealed that the switch produced a significant effect on the RTs of
monolinguals, F(1, 11) = 23.75, p < .001, η2 = .68, bilinguals, F(1,
11) = 13.31, p = .003, η2 = .54, and professional translators, F(1,
11) = 26.92, p < .001, η2 = .70. However, the Group × Switch
interaction suggests that although the switch affected all groups, it
was higher in monolinguals than in bilinguals and professional
translators (see Figure 3).
Residual Effect Between Initial and Reversed Learning
We also decided to compare the overall RTs obtained for Block 1
versus Block 6 across the three groups, using Block 1 as a baseline
condition to observe residual effects of previous CP on the trials
right after the switch point. Data were analyzed through a 3 × 2
mixed ANOVA, being Group the between-groups factor (mono-
linguals, bilinguals, and professional translators) and Block (parti-
cipants’ total mean RT in Blocks 1 and 6) the within-participants
factor. The interaction between Group and Block was significant,
F(2, 33) = 7.32, p = .002, η2p = .30.
Planned comparisons showed a significant difference between
Blocks 1 and 6 in the monolingual group, F(1, 33) = 23.63, p < .001,
η2 = .41 (see Figure 4). However, the difference in RTs between
Block 1 versus Block 6 was not significant in the case of bilinguals
and translators (all ps < .05).
CV Analysis in Block 1 Versus Block 5
Since Blocks 1 and 5 represent the trials before switching, and
they are optimal to assess the effect of practice in the visual search
task, we further analyzed them by calculating the CV. The CV was
calculated for the three groups of participants in Blocks 1 and 5,
collapsing the Memory-set Size data within each block. For each
participant, CV was calculated through the formula SD/RT. Figure 5
shows the changes in CV as a function of blocks and groups. A two-
way ANOVA was performed introducing the Group (monolinguals,
bilinguals, and translators) and the Block (1 and 5) as factors.
The main effect of Group was not significant, F < 1. The main
effect of Block was significant, F(1, 33) = 9.32, p = .004, η2p = .22.
The Group × Block interaction did not reach significance, F(1, 33) =
1.11, p = .33, η2p = .06. However, statistical analyses were per-
formed to compare CV from Blocks 1 and 5 in each of the groups
considered, as we had a priori predictions (described in the
 AUTOMATICITY AND CONTROL IN BILINGUALS AND TRANSLATORS
Figure 5
Change in the CV Index as a Function of Blocks and Groups
Note. The CV dropped out significantly through practice only in the
monolingual group, indicating cognitive restructuring in automatization;
the reduction of the variance in bilinguals and translators did not reach
significance. CV = coefficient of variation. See the online article for the color
version of this figure.
introduction section) about between-group differences in the CV as
an index of the cognitive reorganization associated to the continuous
practice in the memory search task (e.g., Segalowitz & Hulstijn,
2009; Segalowitz & Segalowitz, 1993). Moreover, the visual explo-
ration of our data provided hints to think that further analysis might
allow us to answer to our specific research questions more compre-
hensively (for a similar argument/approach and further examples,
see Wei et al., 2012). Thus, a repeated-measure ANOVA was
carried out within each group. Analysis revealed a significant
main effect in the monolingual group, F(1, 11) = 8.84, p = .01,
η2 = .44. No significant main effect was observed neither in
bilinguals, F < 1, nor in translators, F(1, 11) = 2.19, p = .16,
η2 = .16. In other words, the CV dropped out significantly through
practice only in the monolingual group, while the reduction of the
variance in bilinguals and translators did not reach significance. The
results for the CV in Block 1 versus Block 5 are reported in Figure 5.
Discussion
In the last decades, many studies have provided evidence that
specific forms of training and experience (e.g., music expertise,
sports, specific upbringing, etc.) might shape differentially how
individuals perform tasks that tap processes related to cognitive
control (e.g., Bialystok & Depape, 2009; Hedden et al., 2008). The
use of more than one language appears to be one of the factors that
contribute to how individual performance is shaped in these tasks
(e.g., Bialystok, 2017; Bialystok et al., 2009). The aim of our study
was to evaluate the balance between automaticity and cognitive
control in a language independent task (training in a memory search
task) and to examine possible differences between monolinguals
and bilinguals with different linguistic experiences (untrained
bilinguals and professional translators).
The results obtained in the present study revealed that at the
beginning of the task, the memory retrieval search was performed in
an effortful and controlled fashion for all groups, since the memory
load affected all groups’ RT in their memory search process,
consistent with the findings by Shiffrin and Schneider (1977).
Interestingly, in Block 1, we observed that overall RTs in response
37
to the targets changed as a function of group. Translators and
monolinguals did not differ in the initial part of the memory search
task and were slower compared to bilinguals. The fact that bilinguals
tended to be faster in a task that involves control (such as at the
beginning of practice here, Block 1) is not new in the literature.
Bialystok (2006) consistently found that bilinguals are faster and
interpreted the finding in the light of differently shaped monitoring
processes (see also Bialystok et al., 2004; Costa et al., 2009;
Desideri & Bonifacci, 2018).
Importantly, after 1,500 CP trials, the Memory-set Size effect
disappeared in the RTs of monolinguals (Block 5); this observation
allows us to speculate that their memory search for targets was
performed less serially and showed a route toward automaticity
because of practice. Nevertheless, the Memory-set Size effect was
still observed in bilinguals and translators: In fact, despite the CP
throughout the initial 1,500 trials, their memory search was still
serial and highly dependent on load, suggesting that bilinguals and
professional translators kept performing their memory search pro-
cesses in a more controlled, resource-consuming manner. Despite
this pattern of results, it was interesting to observe that professional
translators accelerated their memory search processes, since in
Block 5 they were as fast as bilinguals. Moreover, monolinguals
showed significantly slower RTs compared to the other two groups
in Block 5, which is quite surprising considering that automatization
should also imply faster performance. However, this apparent
incongruency (automaticity without speedup of performance in
monolinguals) was feasibly explained through the analysis of the
CV and allowed us to clearly disentangle automaticity from speedup
of performance (further discussion provided below).
The CV analysis was performed to assess whether the changes in
RT along the trials corresponded to the steady behavior that usually
underlies automatic processing and not to mere speedup effects. It
should be remembered that Segalowitz and Segalowitz (1993)
distinguished between speedup of performance (in this case,
mean RT and mean standard deviation of responses decrease to
the same degree) and automatization (in this case, mean standard
deviation decreases more than mean RTs). Therefore, the CV,
calculated through the standard deviation divided by the mean
RT, decreases in the case of automatization while it remains
unchanged in the case of speedup (Hulstijn et al., 2009). The CV
drop in the case of automatization indicates that a qualitative change
has been produced. Our analysis suggested that the CV dropped out
significantly throughout the practice blocks in the monolingual
group, while the reduction of variance in bilinguals and translators
did not reach significance. Thus, the CV results are consistent with
the analysis performed for RTs, suggesting that cognitive restruc-
turing was only present in monolinguals. Specifically, our rationale
is that the drop in CV across the trials for the monolingual
participants indicated that their automatization process was not
linked to the speedup of performance; rather, it was based on a
stable behavior to perform the task at hand. This claim is also
aligned with the pattern of results obtained in overall mean RT
analysis (by collapsing the Memory-set Size): Automaticity in task
performance is a construct that is closer to the idea of cognitive
restructuring rather than to mere speedup of performance. In Block 5,
where CP was carried out by all groups, monolinguals showed a less
serial search (implying cognitive restructuring) despite being signifi-
cantly slower compared to bilinguals and translators. Conversely,
trained and untrained bilinguals showed a speedup of performance
38 TOGATO, MACIZO, AND BAJO
despite maintaining sustained cognitive control over the task. In a
sense, we have evidence to suggest that bilinguals and translators might
be enhancing the cognitive control exerted over the task by speeding it
up. This point, in our opinion, is particularly important for the use of the
construct of automaticity in language, since it supports the idea that
speedup and cognitive restructuring underlying automaticity are factors
that are intertwined but function independently (for similar claims, see
Segalowitz & Hulstijn, 2009).
The pattern of results obtained for translators was unexpected
since we predicted that professional translators would show more
automatic patterns than monolinguals and untrained bilinguals.
Differences in bilingual experiences have been proposed as one
of the reasons that might contribute to differential findings across
studies (e.g., Beatty-Martínez et al., 2020; Fricke et al., 2019;
Green & Abutalebi, 2013; but see Valiant & Valiant, 2014, for
other possible reasons). For example, some studies reported that
bilinguals who continuously switch between their languages are
more efficient in nonverbal switching tasks compared to bilin-
guals who do not switch very often (e.g., Prior & Gollan, 2011).
Similarly, professional translators seem to engage different lan-
guage selection processes compared to untrained bilinguals (e.g.,
Morales, Padilla, et al., 2015).
Recently, Green and Abutalebi (2013) proposed that language
control processes adapt to the recurrent demands imposed by
different interactional contexts (e.g., single language vs. dual lan-
guage vs. intense code-switching; Adaptive Control Hypothesis).
The authors support the idea that the specific interactional context in
which bilinguals hold a conversation is the key factor that modulates
the cognitive regulation underlying executive control. Following
this rationale, the main goal of the present study was to disentangle
possible differences between the cognitive mechanisms recruited by
trained translators and untrained bilinguals, since their use of two
languages is linked to different interactional contexts. We were not
able to detect any differences between untrained bilinguals and
professional translators in the balance between automatic and
controlled processes tapping nonverbal tasks. The fact that bilin-
guals and translators showed the same pattern seems to suggest that,
in terms of automaticity and control in nonverbal tasks, the overall
cognitive regulation derived from natural, untrained bilingualism
might be equivalent to that due to training in translation.
One of the main reasons why bilinguals and translators exhibited
a similar regulation of cognitive control mechanisms might be that
they both have to negotiate two jointly activated languages in their
minds. Evidence from different experimental procedures suggests
that bilinguals activate their two languages even when only one is in
use (e.g., Bialystok et al., 2009; Grainger, 1993; Hermans et al.,
1998; Kroll & Bialystok, 2013; Togato et al., 2017; van Heuven
et al., 1998). For instance, Macizo and Bajo (2006) found that the
magnitude of lexical coactivation across languages in translation
tasks was the same in professional translators (Experiment 2a) as in
untrained bilinguals (Experiment 2b). Due to this language coacti-
vation, bilinguals and translators would continuously need to
engage attentional and language selection processes to control for
the potential interference derived from the unintended language. It
has been pointed out that these processes are particularly powerful
experiences for the brain, since they promote alternative executive
control processes in bilingual children, sustained cognitive control
for adult bilinguals, and protective mechanisms that avoid the
decline of these processes in the aging bilingual brain (e.g.,
Bialystok, 2007, 2017).
In other words, the present exploration is in line with those studies
suggesting that the bilingual experience seems to foster important
behavioral changes that make themselves visible in nonverbal tasks
operating at the general cognitive level, such as monitoring and goal
maintenance (e.g., Colzato et al., 2008; Costa et al., 2009); switch-
ing (e.g., Prior & Gollan, 2011; Prior & MacWhinney, 2010);
working memory (WM; e.g., Blom et al., 2014; Feng, 2009; Luo
et al., 2013; Morales, Calvo, et al., 2013; Wodniecka et al., 2010);
coordination (e.g., Bialystok, 2011); mental flexibility (e.g., Peal &
Lambert, 1962); and proactive–reactive control adjustment to cope
with interference (e.g., Colzato et al., 2013; Morales, Calvo, et al.,
2013; Morales, Padilla, et al., 2015). This idea of a differential/
alternative bilingual cognitive regulation has been supported by
neurocognitive studies suggesting that the impact of learning a
second language causes anatomical changes in the brain structure,
such as increased gray matter density (e.g., Mechelli et al., 2004),
increased cortical thickness (e.g., Mårtensson et al., 2012) and
enhanced white matter integrity (e.g., Luk, De Sa, et al., 2011;
see Li et al., 2014, for an extensive review). The present results add
to this literature by suggesting that different bilingual experiences
seem to impact cognitive performance in different ways.
Even though in the present study we were able to track important
differences between monolinguals and (different types of) bilin-
guals in terms of balance between automaticity and cognitive
control, our original prediction was based on data that suggest
that professional translation requires faster and more efficient
processing during comprehension and retrieval processes (e.g.,
De Groot & Christoffels, 2006). The rationale behind our predic-
tion was that practice in the efficient use of automatic processing
during linguistic retrieval would transfer to nonverbal tasks re-
cruiting similar mechanisms such as the one employed in the
present study. However, contrary to our predictions, differences
between bilinguals and translators were not detected in the search
in memory task, and they both differed from the monolinguals in
an unexpected manner.
Practice throughout the experiment had no differential effect on
the accuracy of monolinguals, bilinguals, and translators; in fact,
accuracy analyses revealed no qualitative differences between the
three groups. Oddly, it seems that for low and medium memory
loads, bilinguals and translators changed their qualitative strategy
toward a less serial search through the boost of the cognitive control
exerted over the task by speeding up the mechanisms underlying
executive control. This pattern is not new in the literature; for
example, it has been previously observed by Costa et al. (2008).
The authors employed the Attention Network Test (i.e., ANT task)
to compare monolinguals and bilinguals on alerting, orienting, and
executive control. Although they showed important quantitative
differences between the two groups (e.g., coherent with the present
results, bilinguals were overall faster and suffered less from switch-
ing costs), qualitative differences were not present.
Additionally, we were interested in the switch manipulation: It
was supposed to produce a cost in RTs, reflecting between-groups
differences in the reestablishment of cognitive control when facing
new tasks. Interestingly, monolingual participants showed larger
switching cost (RT differences between trials before and after the
switch) than bilinguals and translators. Coherently, the memory
search slope for the monolinguals changed from being independent
 AUTOMATICITY AND CONTROL IN BILINGUALS AND TRANSLATORS
on load before the switch to be dependent on memory load with
slower times for higher loads. This pattern possibly suggests that a
strategy based on a less serial search through the learning phase had
the side effect of increasing the switching cost when a new
configuration of the task was introduced (after switching trials).
Thus, the present study suggests that although a more automatic
strategy is advantageous when considering the learning phase of
consistent aspects of the skill (preswitching trials), it has a cost when
novelty is introduced. In fact, it might have been legit to expect that
speed of performance after the switch point (Block 6) would return
to the level seen at the start of the original learning (Block 1). That
happened for bilinguals and translators, but not for monolinguals,
who showed significantly slower detection times in Block 6 com-
pared to Block 1 (i.e., residual effect). In other words, a negative
transfer pattern was observed for monolinguals, reasonably because
of previous, less serial search. In contrast to monolinguals, the
quantitative strategy adopted by bilinguals and translators during
the training phase seemed to be more serial, with the cost that along
the trials, search was dependent on the number of stimuli in the set.
However, this apparently less efficient performance still allowed
qualitative automaticity in response and turned into a booster when
switching was introduced and the task required searches through
previously distractor information. This flexibility to adapt to new
task requirements is analogous to that observed in previous studies,
for example, by Yudes et al. (2011). In the Wisconsin Card Sorting
Test employed in their study, professional translators showed higher
degree of cognitive flexibility when they were required to change the
hypothesis linked to the categorization rule inferred. Overall, that
study suggested enhanced cognitive flexibility due to professional
expertise and high cognitive control maintenance. This effect is also
analogous to other switching effects that have been revealed to be
differentially coped by bilinguals in other tasks (e.g., Simon Task,
Bialystok et al., 2004; ANT Task, Costa et al., 2008). In our
research, this flexibility to adapt to “reversed”/novel situations
was found in both bilinguals and translators: When a switching
was introduced and the task required to adjust previously learned
cognitive behavior to handle novel tasks, professionals and bilin-
guals flexibly accommodated their response to the requirements
imposed by the environment, suggesting that bilinguals confronted
adaptively the changes in task goals. Hence, bilinguals overall
showed a flexible coping pattern in dealing with the high processing
demands imposed by a switch (switching point here), which became
evident—in the present study—in the reversed learning condition.
As Bialystok and Depape (2009) suggest, an interesting feature of
the cognitive restructuring linked to bilingualism is that an analo-
gous cognitive restructuring is also found in other domains than
bilingualism (e.g., musical expertise), emphasizing the role of
domain-general mechanisms. Therefore, very different experiences
can engage the same general cognitive mechanisms, although
through requirements that are specific to those experiences (in
our case, bilingualism vs. translation; Bialystok & Depape,
2009). Probably, the regular use of two or more languages and
the need to control and switch between them force both bilinguals
and translators to keep constant control over their languages and this
constant control transfers to other nonverbal tasks. Previous
research, however, suggests that bilinguals and translators do differ
in other cognitive control situations (e.g., Morales, Padilla, et al.,
2015; Yudes et al., 2010).
39
Conclusion
To conclude, the contribution of this work is threefold: (a) we
were able to explore simultaneously the constructs of automaticity
and cognitive control across the populations of interest; (b) we could
observe how the balance between these constructs might be modu-
lated by different linguistic experiences; (c) we were able to provide
further evidence in favor of a theoretical dissociation between the
constructs of automaticity versus speedup of performance (for a
similar argument, see Segalowitz & Segalowitz, 1993).
However, we know that the present study has some limitations,
although we think that these same limitations might be useful to
implement more fine-grained explorations in the future. First, some
effects (e.g., tendency toward full automaticity pattern in accuracy)
probably could have been observed including more participants in
the study. Second, readers might ask why the participants performed
poorly. This task is particularly demanding in the sense that the
participant must compare each member of the Memory-set against
each item in the frame (holding them in WM). Moreover, partici-
pants repeat this process 19 times in just one trial because they are
presented with 19 different rapid slides that require individual
comparison of each member of the Memory-set against each item
in the frame; even if they infer the rule underlying the automatization
pattern (first vs. second part of the alphabet), they do not know if that
rule will change on a specific moment, feasibly implying that
participants will start comparison from scratch on each new frame/
slide. Moreover, they only have 2 s to finalize the comparison on each
slide. Apart from comparing, switching from frame to frame also
implies cognitive effort (Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977). Additionally,
each trial took (1st frame self-paced variable time) + (2 s × 19 frames
= 38 s) to complete; moreover, each initial learning session took 19
frames × 500 trials = 9,500 total comparisons of the Memory-set/
against frame, and it might have been too much for our partici-
pants to maintain high efficiency during the whole session (for a
similar argument, see Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977).
Another relevant caveat to our interpretation is that a quasi-
experimental design such as the one presented here pivots around
inherent differences of people’s experiences rather than controlled
manipulation, implying that caution is needed before establishing a
causal relationship between the treatment and the observed factors.
Hence, future explorations should aim at strengthening the causality
bond between the factors considered through a true experimental
design.
Likewise, the present study could have benefited from the
adoption of objective measures to assess the participants’ profi-
ciency in their second language; in this case, this was not possible
given the very varied language pairings, but this would be a point of
strength for future experiments.
Moreover, we would like to mention that it might be interesting to
manipulate the amount of practice (number of trials before the
switch point) to observe how to reach effortless qualitative search in
memory and if quantitative automaticity is reached at some point by
bilinguals and translators. Finally, the task that we employed could
be modified to include linguistic materials, so to compare perfor-
mance between the task presented here and a linguistic variation of
the same task. Therefore, we already have new questions that can
now be framed at the light of the results that we have obtained in the
present study, and we hope to be able to answer these ques-
tions soon.
40 TOGATO, MACIZO, AND BAJO
Résumé
Il a été observé que différentes expériences linguistiques peuvent
exercer un effet différentiel sur les processus cognitifs généraux. Par
exemple, la recherche a montré que le contrôle du langage dans la
traduction professionnelle diffère du contrôle du langage appliqué à
d’autres types d’activités bilingues. La présente étude se concentre
sur la construction de l’automaticité et vise à déterminer si diffé-
rentes expériences linguistiques pourraient moduler l’équilibre entre
l’automaticité et le contrôle cognitif au niveau cognitif général.
Ainsi, des monolingues, des bilingues et des traducteurs profes-
sionnels ont effectué une tâche de recherche en mémoire qui a été
largement utilisée pour observer comment l’automaticité est acquise
par une pratique constante. Les comparaisons entre les groupes ont
montré des différences globales dans la facilité d’exécution de la
tâche et, surtout, des différences dans l’automaticité et le contrôle
cognitif. Plus précisément, les monolingues ont montré des niveaux
d’automaticité plus élevés dans la phase d’apprentissage de la tâche,
tandis que les bilingues et les traducteurs professionnels ont effectué
la tâche de manière plus contrôlée. Ce schéma pourrait avoir
impliqué des coûts cognitifs plus élevés pour le groupe monolingue
lorsqu’une condition d’apprentissage inversée était présentée. Il est
possible qu’en raison d’un contrôle antérieur de la phase d’appren-
tissage initiale, les bilingues et les traducteurs aient été moins
affectés par les coûts cognitifs associés à l’inversion de la condition
d’apprentissage. Les différences sont expliquées en termes de
traduction professionnelle et de pratique bilingue quotidienne.
Mots-clés : automaticité, contrôle cognitif, bilinguisme, traduction,
interprétation
References
Babcock, L., & Vallesi, A. (2015). Language control is not a one-size-fits-all
languages process: Evidence from simultaneous interpretation students
and the n-2 repetition cost. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1622.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01622
Babcock, L., & Vallesi, A. (2017). Are simultaneous interpreters expert
bilinguals, unique bilinguals, or both? Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 20, 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000735
Bartning, I., Forsberg, F., & Hancock, V. (2009). Resources and obstacles in
very advanced L2 French formulaic language, information structure and
morphosyntax. Eurosla Yearbook, 9(1), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.1075/
eurosla.9.10bar
Beatty-Martínez, A. L., Navarro-Torres, C. A., Dussias, P. E., Bajo, M. T.,
Guzzardo Tamargo, R. E., & Kroll, J. F. (2020). Interactional context
mediates the consequences of bilingualism for language and cognition.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
46(6), 1022–1047. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000770
Bellegarda, M., & Macizo, P. (2021). Cognitive control and bilingualism:
The bilingual advantage through the lens of dimensional overlap. Fron-
tiers in Psychology, 12, Article 614849. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg
.2021.614849
Bialystok, E. (2006). Effect of bilingualism and computer video game
experience on the Simon task. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 60(1), 68–79.
https://doi.org/10.1037/cjep2006008
Bialystok, E. (2007). Cognitive effects of bilingualism: How linguistic
experience leads to cognitive change. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 10(3), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.2167/be
b441.0
Bialystok, E. (2011). Coordination of executive functions in monolingual
and bilingual children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(3),
461-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.05.005
Bialystok, E. (2017). The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate
experience. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 233–262. https://doi.org/10
.1037/bul0000099
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., Green, D. W., & Gollan, T. H. (2009). Bilingual
minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10(3), 89–129.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100610387084
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004).
Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon
task. Psychology and Aging, 19(2), 290–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0882-7974.19.2.290
Bialystok, E., & Depape, A. M. (2009). Musical expertise, bilingualism, and
executive functioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 35(2), 565–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0012735
Blom, E., Küntay, A. C., Messer, M., Verhagen, J., & Leseman, P. (2014).
The benefits of being bilingual: Working memory in bilingual Turkish-
Dutch children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 128, 105–119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.06.007
Cao, R., Nosofsky, R. M., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2017). The development of
automaticity in short-term memory search: Item-response learning and
category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 43(5), 669–679. https://doi.org/10.1037/
xlm0000355
Chambers, F. (1997). What do we mean by fluency? System, 25(4), 535–544.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00046-8
Chi, M. T., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1981). Expertise in problem solving. In R.
Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7–15).
Erlbaum Associates.
Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts’ characteristics.
In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert
performance (pp. 21–30). Cambridge University Press.
Christoffels, I. K., de Groot, A., & Waldorp, L. J. (2003). Basic skills in a
complex task: A graphical model relating memory and lexical retrieval to
simultaneous interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(3),
201–211. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728903001135
Christoffels, I. K., de Groot, A. M., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Memory and
language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and
language proficiency. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(3), 324–345.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.004
Colzato, L. S., Bajo, M. T., van den Wildenberg, W., Paolieri, D.,
Nieuwenhuis, S., La Heij, W., & Hommel, B. (2008). How does
bilingualism improve executive control? A comparison of active and
reactive inhibition mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(2), 302–312. https://doi.org/10
.1037/0278-7393.34.2.302
Colzato, L. S., van den Wildenberg, W. P., Zmigrod, S., & Hommel, B.
(2013). Action video gaming and cognitive control: Playing first person
shooter games is associated with improvement in working memory but not
action inhibition. Psychological Research, 77, 234–239. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s00426-012-0415-2
Costa, A., Hernández, M., Costa-Faidella, J., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2009).
On the bilingual advantage in conflict processing: Now you see it, now you
don’t. Cognition, 113(2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition
.2009.08.001
Costa, A., Hernández, M., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2008). Bilingualism
aids conflict resolution: Evidence from the ANT task. Cognition,
106(1), 59–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.013
De Groot, A., & Christoffels, I. K. (2006). Language control in bilinguals:
Monolingual tasks and simultaneous interpreting. Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition, 9(2), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S13667289060
02537
 AUTOMATICITY AND CONTROL IN BILINGUALS AND TRANSLATORS
De Groot, A. M. (2000). A complex-skill approach to translation. In
S. Tirkkonen-Condit, & R. Jääskeläinen (Eds.), Tapping and mapping
the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical
research (pp. 53–68). John Benahmins.
Desideri, L., & Bonifacci, P. (2018). Verbal and nonverbal anticipatory
mechanisms in bilinguals. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(3),
719–739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9556-1
Elstein, A. S., Shulman, L. S., & Sprafka, S. A. (1978). Medical problem
solving an analysis of clinical reasoning. Evaluation & the Health
Professions, 13(1), 5–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/016327879001300102
Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice
on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson,
N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge
handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 683–703).
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO97805118
16796.038
Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). The
Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816796
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A
flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and
biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://
doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Feng, X. (2009). Working Memory and bilingualism: An investigation of
executive control and processing speed [Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion]. York University.
Fisher, A. G., & Jensen, C. R. (1990). Scientific basis of athletic condition-
ing. Lea & Febiger.
Fox, R. C. (1980). The evolution of medical uncertainty. The Milbank
Memorial Fund Quarterly: Health and Society, 58(1), 1–49. https://
doi.org/10.2307/3349705
Fricke, M., Zirnstein, M., Navarro-Torres, C., & Kroll, J. F. (2019).
Bilingualism reveals fundamental variation in language processing. Bilin-
gualism: Language and Cognition, 22, 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1366728918000482
Gagne, R. M. (1983). Some issues in the psychology of mathematics
instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 7–18.
https://doi.org/10.2307/748793
Gile, D. (1995). Fidelity assessment in consecutive interpretation: An experi-
ment. Target, 7(1), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.7.1.12gil
Gile, D. (1997). Conference interpreting as a cognitive management prob-
lem. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, & M. K. McBeath
(Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting (pp. 196–214).
Sage Publications.
Gile, D. (2017). Testing the effort models’ tightrope hypothesis in simul-
taneous interpreting–a contribution. Journal of Language and Commu-
nication in Business, 12, 153–172. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb
.v12i23.25553
Grainger, J. (1993). Visual word recognition in bilinguals. In R. Schreuder &
B. Weltens (Eds.), Studies in bilingualism, Vol. 6. The bilingual lexicon
(pp. 11–25). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10
.1075/sibil.6.03gra
Green, D. W., & Abutalebi, J. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: The
adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5),
515–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.796377
Hasselbring, T. S., Goin, L. I., & Bransford, J. D. (1987). Developing
automaticity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 19(3), 30–32. https://
doi.org/10.1177/004005998701900309
Hedden, T., Ketay, S., Aron, A., Markus, H. R., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2008).
Cultural influences on neural substrates of attentional control. Psycholog-
ical Science, 19(1), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008
.02038.x
Henrard, S., & Van Daele, A. (2017). Different bilingual experiences might
modulate executive tasks advantages: Comparative analysis between
41
monolinguals, translators, and interpreters. Frontiers in Psychology, 8,
Article 1870. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01870
Hermans, D., Bongaerts, T., de Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1998). Producing
words in a foreign language: Can speakers prevent interference from their
first language? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 213–229.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728998000364
Hervais-Adelman, A., Moser-Mercer, B., & Golestani, N. (2015b). Brain
functional plasticity associated with the emergence of expertise in extreme
language control. NeuroImage, 114, 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ne
uroimage.2015.03.072
Hervais-Adelman, A., Moser-Mercer, B., Michel, C. M., & Golestani, N.
(2015a). fMRI of simultaneous interpretation reveals the neural basis of
extreme language control. Cerebral Cortex (New York, N.Y.), 25(12),
4727–4739. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu158
Hulstijn, J. H., van Gelderen, A., & Schoonen, R. (2009). Automatization in
second language acquisition: What does the coefficient of variation tell
us? Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 555–582. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0142716409990014
Hvelplund, K. T. (2016). Cognitive efficiency in translation. In R. Muñoz
Martín (Ed.), Reembedding translation process research (pp. 149–170).
John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.128.08hve
Ibáñez, A. J., Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2010). Language access and
language selection in professional translators. Acta Psychologica, 135(2),
257–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.07.009
Jost, L. (2021). Concerns about cognitive performance at chance level.
Scientific Reports, 11, Article 15530. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-
93953-8
Kroll, J., Dussias, P. E., & Bajo, M. T. (2018). Language use across
international contexts: Shaping the minds of L2 speakers. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 38, 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S02671905
18000119
Kroll, J. F., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Understanding the consequences of
bilingualism for language processing and cognition. Journal of Cognitive
Psychology, 25(5), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013
.799170
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic
information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2
Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and
novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208(4450),
1335–1342. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.208.4450.1335
Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.
Li, P., Legault, J., & Litcofsky, K. A. (2014). Neuroplasticity as a function of
second language learning: Anatomical changes in the human brain.
Cortex, 58, 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.05.001
Logan, G. D. (1991). Automaticity and memory. In W. E. Hockley & S.
Lewandowsky (Eds.), Relating theory and data: Essays on human mem-
ory in honor of Bennet B. Murdock (pp. 347–366). Erlbaum.
Luk, G., De Sa, E., & Bialystok, E. (2011). Is there a relation between onset
age of bilingualism and enhancement of cognitive control? Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 14(04), 588–595. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1366728911000010
Luo, L., Craik, F. I., Moreno, S., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Bilingualism
interacts with domain in a working memory task: Evidence from aging.
Psychology and Aging, 28(1), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030875
Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2006). Reading for repetition and reading for
translation: Do they involve the same processes? Cognition, 99(1), 1–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.012
Macizo, P., Bajo, T., & Martín, M. C. (2010). Inhibitory processes in
bilingual language comprehension: Evidence from Spanish–English inter-
lexical homographs. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(2), 232–244.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.04.002
Mårtensson, J., Eriksson, J., Bodammer, N. C., Lindgren, M., Johansson, M.,
Nyberg, L., & Lövdén, M. (2012). Growth of language-related brain areas
42 TOGATO, MACIZO, AND BAJO
after foreign language learning. NeuroImage, 63(1), 240–244. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.043
Mechelli, A., Crinion, J. T., Noppeney, U., O’Doherty, J., Ashburner, J.,
Frackowiak, R. S., & Price, C. J. (2004). Neurolinguistics: Structural
plasticity in the bilingual brain. Nature, 431(7010), 757. https://doi.org/10
.1038/431757a
Morales, J., Calvo, A., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Working memory devel-
opment in monolingual and bilingual children. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 114(2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012
.09.002
Morales, J., Padilla, F., Gómez-Ariza, C. J., & Bajo, M. T. (2015). Simulta-
neous interpretation selectively influences working memory and atten-
tional networks. Acta Psychologica, 155, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.actpsy.2014.12.004
Nosofsky, R. M., Cao, R., Cox, G. E., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2014). Familiarity
and categorization processes in memory search. Cognitive Psychology, 75,
97–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.08.003
Paap, K. R., Anders-Jefferson, R., Mikulinsky, R., Masuda, S., & Mason, L.
(2019). On the encapsulation of bilingual language control. Journal of
Memory and Language, 105, 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018
.12.001
PACTE Group. (2000). Acquiring translation competence: hypotheses and
methodological problems of a research project. In A. Beeby, D. Ensinger,
& M. Presas (Eds.), Investigating translation: Selected papers from the
4th international congress on translation, Barcelona, 1998 (Vol. 32,
pp. 99–106). John Benjamins Publishing.
Padilla, F., Bajo, M. T., & Macizo, P. (2005). Articulatory suppression in
language interpretation: Working memory capacity, dual tasking and word
knowledge. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8(3), 207–219.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728905002269
Peal, E., & Lambert, W. E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelli-
gence. Psychological Monographs, 76(27), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/
h0093840
Prior, A., & Gollan, T. H. (2011). Good language-switchers are good task-
switchers: Evidence from Spanish-English and Mandarin-English bilin-
guals. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17(4),
682–691. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617711000580
Prior, A., & MacWhinney, B. (2010). A bilingual advantage in task switch-
ing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(2), 253–262. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990526
Rodgers, D. M. (2011). The automatization of verbal morphology in
instructed second language acquisition. International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49(4), 295–319. https://doi.org/10
.1515/iral.2011.016
Rosiers, A., Woumans, E., Duyck, W., & Eyckmans, J. (2019). Investigating
the presumed cognitive advantage of aspiring interpreters. Interpreting,
21(1), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00022.ros
Samuels, S. J., LaBerge, D., & Bremer, C. D. (1978). Units of word
recognition: Evidence for developmental changes. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(6), 715–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0022-5371(78)90433-4
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime: User’s
guide. Psychology Software Incorporated.
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human
information processing: I. Detection, search and attention. Psychological
Review, 84(1), 1–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.1.1
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203851357
Segalowitz, N., & Hulstijn, J. (2009). Automaticity in bilingualism and
second language learning. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. de Groot (Eds.),
Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 371–388).
Oxford University Press.
Segalowitz, N., Watson, V., & Segalowitz, S. (1995). Vocabulary skill:
Single-case assessment of automaticity of word recognition in a timed
lexical decision task. Second Language Research, 11(2), 121–136. https://
doi.org/10.1177/026765839501100204
Segalowitz, N. S., & Segalowitz, S. J. (1993). Skilled performance, practice,
and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence
from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14,
369. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400010845
Segalowitz, S. J., & Lane, K. C. (2000). Lexical access of function versus
content words. Brain and Language, 75(3), 376–389. https://doi.org/10
.1006/brln.2000.2361
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human
information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a
general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127–190. https://doi.org/10
.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127
Shreve, G. M. (2002). Knowing translation: Cognitive and experiential
aspects of translation expertise from the perspective of expertise studies.
In A. Riccardi (Ed.), Translation studies. perspectives on an emerging
discipline (pp. 150–171). Cambridge University Press.
Shreve, G. M. (2006). The deliberate practice: Translation and expertise. The
Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 9(1), 27–42.
Sternberg, S. (2016). In defence of high-speed memory scanning. Quar-
terly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psy-
chology, 69(10), 2020–2075. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016
.1198820
Togato, G., Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2022, January 16). Automaticity and
control in bilinguals and translators. http://osf.io/fzaq7
Togato, G., Paredes, N., Macizo, P., & Bajo, T. (2017). Syntactic processing
in professional interpreters: Understanding ambiguous sentences in read-
ing and translation. Applied Linguistics, 38(4), 581–598. https://doi.org/10
.1093/applin/amv054
Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency
in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 84–119.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.84
Townsend, J. T., & Fifić, M. (2004). Parallel versus serial processing and
individual differences in high-speed search in human memory. Per-
ception & Psychophysics, 66(6), 953–962. https://doi.org/10.3758/
BF03194987
Valiant, G., & Valiant, P. (2014, October). An automatic inequality prover
and instance optimal identity testing. In 2014 IEEE 55th Annual
Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (pp. 51–60).
IEEE.
Van de Putte, E., De Baene, W., García-Pentón, L., Woumans, E., Dijkgraaf,
A., & Duyck, W. (2018). Anatomical and functional changes in the brain
after simultaneous interpreting training: A longitudinal study. Cortex, 99,
243–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.11.024
Van der Linden, L., Van de Putte, E., Woumans, E., Duyck, W., & Szmalec,
A. (2018). Does extreme language control training improve cognitive
control? A comparison of professional interpreters, L2 teachers and
monolinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1998. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01998
Van Heuven, W. J., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic
neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory
and Language, 39(3), 458–483. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.
2584
Wei, J., Carroll, R. J., Harden, K. K., & Wu, G. (2012). Comparisons of
treatment means when factors do not interact in two-factorial studies.
Amino Acids, 42(5), 2031–2035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00726-011-0924-0
Wodniecka, Z., Craik, F. I., Luo, L., & Bialystok, E. (2010). Does
bilingualism help memory? Competing effects of verbal ability and
executive control. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 13(5), 575–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2010
.488287
Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Visual search in continuous, naturalistic stimuli.
Vision Research, 34(9), 1187–1195. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989
(94)90300-X
 AUTOMATICITY AND CONTROL IN BILINGUALS AND TRANSLATORS 43

Wolfe, J. M., Boettcher, S. E., Josephs, E. L., Cunningham, C. A., & Drew,
T. (2015). You look familiar, but I don’t care: Lure rejection in hybrid
visual and memory search is not based on familiarity. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 1576–1587.
https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000096
Wolfe, J. M., Brunelli, D. N., Rubinstein, J., & Horowitz, T. S. (2013).
Prevalence effects in newly trained airport checkpoint screeners: Trained
observers miss rare targets, too. Journal of Vision, 13(3), Article 33.
https://doi.org/10.1167/13.3.33
Yudes, C., Macizo, P., & Bajo, T. (2010). Cognate effects in bilingual
language comprehension tasks. Neuroreport, 21(7), 507–512. https://
doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e328338b9e1
Yudes, C., Macizo, P., & Bajo, T. (2011). The influence of expertise in
simultaneous interpreting on non-verbal executive processes. Frontiers in
Psychology, 2, Article 309. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00309
Yudes, C., Macizo, P., & Bajo, T. (2012). Coordinating comprehension and
production in simultaneous interpreters: Evidence from the articulatory
suppression effect. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(2),
329–339. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000150
Received September 19, 2020
Revision received November 2, 2021
Accepted November 9, 2021 ▪

E-Mail Notification of Your Latest CPA Issue Online!

Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite Canadian Psychological Association journal will be available
online? This service is now available. Sign up at https://my.apa.org/portal/alerts/ and you will be notified by e-mail when issues
of interest to you become available!

Avis par courriel de la disponibilité des revues de la SCP en ligne!

Vous voulez savoir quand sera accessible en ligne le prochain numéro de votre revue de la Société canadienne de psychologie
préférée? Il est désormais possible de le faire. Inscrivez-vous à https://my.apa.org/portal/alerts/ et vous serez avisé par courriel
de la date de parution en ligne des numéros qui vous intéressent!
Copyright of Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology is the property of Canadian
Psychological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.