Given prior studies that provided inconsistent results, there is an ongoing debate on the issue of whether bilingualism benefits cognitive control. We tested the Adaptive Control Hypothesis, according to which only the intense use of different languages in the same situation without mixing them in single utterances (called dual-language context) confers a bilingual advantage in response inhibition.

In a large-scale correlational study, we attempted to circumvent several pitfalls of previous research on the bilingual advantage by testing a relatively large sample of participants and employing a more reliable and valid measurement of constructs (i.e., latent variable approach accompanied by Bayesian estimation). Our results do not support the Adaptive Control Hypothesis' prediction: the intensity of the dual-language context experience was unrelated to the efficiency of response inhibition in bilinguals.

The results suggest that the Adaptive Control Hypothesis is not likely to account for the inconsistent results regarding the bilingual advantage hypothesis, at least in the case of the response-inhibition mechanism. At the same time, the study points to the problem of measuring the response-inhibition construct at the behavioral level. No evidence for a robust response-inhibition construct adds to the growing skepticism on this issue in the literature.

鉴于先前的研究结果不一致，关于双语是否对认知控制有益的争论仍在继续。我们测试了自适应控制假说，根据该假说，只有在相同情况下大量使用不同的语言，而不会将它们混合为一种话语（称为双语言上下文），才能在响应抑制方面提供双语优势。

在大规模的相关研究中，我们尝试通过测试相对较大的参与者样本并采用更可靠和有效的结构量度（例如，伴随贝叶斯估计的潜变量方法）来规避先前关于双语优势的研究的一些陷阱。 。我们的结果不支持自适应控制假说的预测：双语环境体验的强度与双语者响应抑制的效率无关。

结果表明，至少在反应抑制机制的情况下，自适应控制假说不太可能解释双语优势假说的不一致结果。同时，研究指出了在行为水平上测量反应抑制结构的问题。没有可靠的反应抑制结构的证据增加了文献中对该问题的怀疑态度。