Cover not available
Part of
Eye Tracking and Multidisciplinary Studies on Translation
Edited by Callum Walker and Federico M. Federici
[Benjamins Translation Library 143] 2018
► pp. 33–53

Chapter 3
Overcoming methodological challenges of eye tracking in the translation workplace

ORCID logo
ORCID logo
This chapter discusses the use of eye tracking in combination with other methods for collecting and analysing translation process data in the workplace. Building on O’Brien (2009) and Teixeira (2014), we account for recent advances in eye-tracking technology and cover expanded use cases in which we have tested our previous recommendations. The methodological discussion is illustrated with a case study whose aim was two-fold: to map the use of tools by translators in a translation company and to investigate the gaze behaviour of those translators on the graphical user interface of a specific translation tool from a cognitive ergonomics perspective. The chapter covers from general topics such as the aspects to be considered when selecting an eye tracker, finding suitable participants and configuring the eye-tracking software, to more specific topics such as how to synchronise logs across tools, how to segment the recordings and whether it is better to use data from one eye or from both eyes. Based on a concrete experiment and on the authors’ previous experiences with similar research scenarios, the chapter discusses what one can or cannot do with eye tracking in Translation Process Research in general, and the challenges related to the use of a mobile eye tracker in the workplace in particular. We present our approach for using eye tracking in such a scenario and suggest possibilities for analysing the data in a meaningful way.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodological considerations
    • 2.1The basics of eye tracking
    • 2.2Selecting an eye tracker
    • 2.3Finding participants
    • 2.4Technical setup
    • 2.5Configuring the eye-tracking software
    • 2.6Collecting the data
  • 3.Analysing the data
    • 3.1Synchronising logs across tools
    • 3.2Dealing with areas of interest (AOIs)
    • 3.3Segmenting the recordings
    • 3.4One eye or both eyes?
    • 3.5Final considerations
  • 4.Summary and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.143.03tei
References (27)
References
Carl, Michael, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer (eds). 2016. New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. New Frontiers in Translation Studies. Cham: Springer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daems, Joke, Michael Carl, Sonia Vandepitte, Robert Hartsuiker, and Lieve Macken. 2016. “The Effectiveness of Consulting External Resources During Translation and Post-editing of General Text Types.” In New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB, ed. by Michael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer, 111–133. New Frontiers in Translation Studies. Cham: Springer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara. 2012. “Indicators of Difficulty in Translation – Correlating Product and Process Data.” Across Languages and Cultures 13 (1): 81–98.DOI logo.Google Scholar
Duchowski, Andrew T. 2009. Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Duchowski, Andrew T., Krzysztof Krejtz, Izabela Krejtz, Cezary Biele, Anna Niedzielska, Peter Kiefer, Martin Raubal, and Ioannis Giannopoulos. 2018. “The Index of Pupillary Activity.” In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference, ed. by Regan Mandryk, Mark Hancock, Mark Perry, and Anna Cox, 1–13. New York, NY, USA: ACM.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen. 2014. “Challenges of Translation Process Research at the Workplace.” In MonTI Special Issue – Minding Translation, ed. by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, 355–383. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Sharon O’Brien. 2015. “Ergonomics of the Translation Workplace: Potential for Cognitive Friction.” Translation Spaces 4 (1): 98–118.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hess, Eckhard H., and James M. Polt. 1964. “Pupil Size in Relation to Mental Activity During Simple Problem-Solving.” Science 143 (3611): 1190–1192.DOI logo.Google Scholar
Holmqvist, Kenneth, Richard Dewhurst, Halszka Jarodzka, Marcus Nyström, Richard Andersson, and Joost C. van de Weijer. 2015. Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian Tangsaard. 2014. “Eye Tracking and the Translation Process: Reflections on the Analysis and Interpretation of Eye-Tracking Data.” In MonTI Special Issue – Minding Translation, ed. by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, 201–223. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
Iqbal, Shamsi T., Piotr D. Adamczyk, Xianjun S. Zheng, and Brian P. Bailey. 2005. “Towards an Index of Opportunity.” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems – CHI ‘05, ed. by Gerrit van der Veer, and Carolyn Gale, 311–320. New York, USA: ACM Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Just, Marcel A., and Patricia A. Carpenter. 1980. “A Theory of Reading: From Eye Fixations to Comprehension.” Psychological Review 87 (4): 329–354.DOI logo.Google Scholar
Kruger, Jan-Louis, María T. Soto-Sanfiel, Stephen Doherty, and Ronny Ibrahim. 2016. “Towards a Cognitive Audiovisual Translatology.” In Reembedding Translation Process Research, ed. by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, 171–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Künzli, Alexander, and Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow. 2011. “Innovative Subtitling: A Reception Study.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies, ed. by Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius, 187–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, Adam M., and Lester C. Loschky. 2009. “The Contributions of Central Versus Peripheral Vision to Scene Gist Recognition.” Journal of Vision 9 (10): 6.DOI logo.Google Scholar
Moran, John, David Lewis, and Christian Saam. 2014. “Analysis of Post-Editing Data: a Productivity Field Test Using an Instrumented CAT Tool.” In Post-Editing of Machine Translation: Processes and Applications, ed. by Sharon O’Brien, Laura Balling, Michael Carl, Michel Simard, and Lucia Specia, 126–146. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Nakayama, Minoru, Koji Takahashi, and Yasutaka Shimizu. 2002. “The Act of Task Difficulty and Eye-movement Frequency for the ‘Oculo-motor Indices’.” In Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications – ETRA ‘02, ed. by Andrew T. Duchowski, Roel Vertegaal, and John W. Senders, 37–42. New York, USA: ACM Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon. 2006. “Eye-tracking and Translation Memory Matches.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 14 (3): 185–205.DOI logo.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Eye Tracking in Translation Process Research: Methodological Challenges and Solutions.” In Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research: A Tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, ed. by Inger Mees, Fabio Alves, and Susanne Göpferich, 251–266. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon, Minako O’Hagan, and Marian Flanagan. 2010. “Keeping an Eye on the UI Design of Translation Memory: How do Translators Use the Concordance Feature?” In Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, ed. by Willem-Paul Brinckman, and Mark Neerincx, 187–190. Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Orrego-Carmona, David. 2016. “A Reception Study on Non-professional Subtitling: Do Audiences Notice Any Difference?” Across Languages and Cultures 17 (2): 163–181.DOI logo.Google Scholar
Posner, Michael I. 1980. “Orienting of Attention.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 32 (1): 3–25.DOI logo.Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna, and Florian Windhager. 2013. “Extended Translation: a Sociocognitive Research Agenda.” Target 25 (1): 33–45.DOI logo.Google Scholar
Teixeira, Carlos S. C. 2014. “Data Collection Methods for Researching the Interaction Between Translators and Translation Tools: An ‘Ecological’ Approach.” In The Development of Translation Competence: Theories and Methodologies from Psycholinguistics and Cognitive Science, ed. by John W. Schwieter, and Aline Ferreira, 269–286. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Teixeira, Carlos S. C., and Sharon O’Brien. 2017. “Investigating the Cognitive Ergonomic Aspects of Translation Tools in a Workplace Setting.” In Translation Practice in the Field: Current Research on Socio-Cognitive Processes, ed. by Hanna Risku, Regina Rogl, and Jelena Milosevic. Translation Spaces 6 (1): 79–103.DOI logo.Google Scholar
Weatherhead, James. 2015. Email communication.Google Scholar
Wright, Richard D., and Lawrence M. Ward. 2008. Orienting of Attention. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Cui, Ying, Xiao Liu & Yuqin Cheng
2023. A Comparative Study on the Effort of Human Translation and Post-Editing in Relation to Text Types: An Eye-Tracking and Key-Logging Experiment. Sage Open 13:1 DOI logo
Su, Wenchao
2023. Eye-voice span in sight interpreting: an eye-tracking investigation. Perspectives 31:5 ► pp. 969 ff. DOI logo
Kruger, Jan-Louis
2021. Eye tracking. In Handbook of Translation Studies [Handbook of Translation Studies, 5], ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Walker, Callum
2021. Investigating how we read translations. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8:2 ► pp. 482 ff. DOI logo
Walker, Callum
2021. The Cognitive Paradigm in Translation Studies. In An Eye-Tracking Study of Equivalent Effect in Translation, ► pp. 13 ff. DOI logo
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A.
2020. The “technological turn” in translation studies. Translation Spaces 9:2 ► pp. 314 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.