Temporal Architecture of Language Processing: A Human Factors Analysis of Congruency Effects in Sequential

Abstract

The present study examines how the modality of information presentation (sequential vs. random) affects user processing efficiency across diverse linguistic backgrounds. Results from 60 participants (15 monolingual English speakers and 45 multilingual speakers of Spanish, French, and Arabic) demonstrate that sequential presentation significantly enhances processing efficiency regardless of linguistic background. The investigation reveals substantial temporal processing effects that transcend linguistic boundaries, including a significant interaction between congruency and language group. These findings inform evidence-based design principles for multilingual interfaces, with direct applications in emergency response systems, aviation displays, healthcare information systems, and other high-stakes environments where information processing efficiency is critical for performance and safety.

Keywords

multilingual interfaces sequential presentation bilingual switch cost cognitive processing human factors engineering

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abutalebi

Green

D. W.

(2008). Control mechanisms in bilingual language production: Neural evidence from language switching studies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(4), 557–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960801920602

Bialystok

Craik

F. I.

Luk

(2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.03.001

Bialystok

(2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 12(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728908003477

Coderre

E. L.

van Heuven

W. J.

(2014). The effect of script similarity on executive control in bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1070. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01070

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Costa

Santesteban

(2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 491–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.002

Dijkstra

van Heuven

W. J. B.

(2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 5(3), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728902003012

Endsley

M. R.

(2016). Situation awareness for emergency response. In Endsley

M. R.

(Ed.), Designing for situation awareness: An approach to user-centered design (2nd ed., pp. 237–264). CRC Press.

Green

D. W.

(1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728998000133

10.

Hale

J. T.

Dyer

Kuncoro

Brennan

J. R.

(2022). Finding syntax in human encephalography with beam search. Cognition, 225, 105139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105139

11.

Kelber

Siebert

Lange

(2023). Multimodal interface errors: Effects of cognitive load and modality mismatch. Human Factors, 65(2), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208221130088

12.

Kroll

J. F.

Dussias

P. E.

Bogulski

C. A.

Valdes Kroff

J. R.

(2015). Juggling two languages in one mind: What bilinguals tell us about language processing and its consequences for cognition. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 62, 229–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2014.10.003

13.

Martin

C. D.

(2020). Language experience and syntactic adaptation: Insights from bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 23(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000473

14.

Meuter

R. F. I.

Allport

(1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2602

15.

Mishra

Prasad

(2024). Human factors in multilingual healthcare systems: Challenges and solutions. Journal of Healthcare Informatics Research, 8(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41666-023-00120-2

16.

Mouloua

Gilson

R. D.

Hancock

P. A.

(2001). Workload, fatigue, and adaptive automation. In Mouloua

Parasuraman

(Eds.), Human performance in automated systems: Current research and trends (pp. 275–282). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

17.

Parasuraman

Wickens

C. D.

(2008). Human factors and automation: Progress and challenges. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 9(3), 230–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220701635475

18.

Pavlenko

(2012). Affective processing in bilingual speakers: Disembodied cognition? International Journal of Psychology, 47(6), 405–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.743665

19.

Prior

Gollan

T. H.

(2011). Good language-switchers are good task-switchers: Evidence from Spanish-English and Mandarin-English bilinguals. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17(4), 682–691. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617711000580

20.

Prior

MacWhinney

(2010). A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(2), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990526

21.

Rader

(2023). Bilingual switch cost effect on language processing [Honors, Undergraduate Thesis (No. 1469)]. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/1469

22.

Shneiderman

Plaisant

Cohen

Jacobs

Elmqvist

Diakopoulos

(2023). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction (7th ed.). Pearson.

23.

Wickens

C. D.

Hollands

J. G.

Banbury

Parasuraman

(2021). Engineering psychology and human performance (5th ed.). Routledge.

24.

Lin

(2021). Structured information flow and cognitive efficiency in digital control rooms. Applied Ergonomics, 95, 103454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103454