Cover not available
Article published In:
FORUM
Vol. 22:1 (2024) ► pp.118–144

Eye-tracking the processing of visual input of live transcripts in remote simultaneous interpreting

Preliminary findings

| University of Leeds
| University of Leeds
The Covid-19 pandemic has led to the booming of remote simultaneous interpreting (RSI), which poses new cognitive challenges for interpreters. This study explores how interpreters adapt to these challenges, specifically the functionality of live transcripts generated automatically by Zoom Meetings in RSI. The study aims to: (1) investigate whether access to live transcripts enhances the overall performance of interpreters; (2) explore whether RSI with live transcripts increases cognitive demands; (3) identify visual attention patterns in RSI with live transcripts. A group of professional interpreting trainees (N = 13) were recruited for the study to examine their interpreting with live transcripts and interpreting without live transcripts, which yields three preliminary findings: Firstly, using live transcripts significantly improves overall interpreting performance. Secondly, RSI with live transcripts is more cognitively demanding. Lastly, live transcripts attract the highest visual attention during the interpreting process.
Keywords: remote simultaneous interpreting, live transcripts, eye-tracking experiment, visual input, quality assessment
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous research on the processing of visual inputs in simultaneous interpreting
    • 2.1Visual inputs in simultaneous interpreting
    • 2.2Eye-tracking the processing of visual inputs in simultaneous interpreting
  • 3.Research questions
  • 4.Research design
    • 4.1An eye-tracked experiment of interpreting
    • 4.2Participants
    • 4.3Source speeches of the interpreting experiment
    • 4.4Procedure and software
    • 4.5Data collection and analysis
      • 4.5.1Eye-tracking data
      • 4.5.2Interpreting performance assessment data
      • 4.5.3Statistical analysis
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Comparison of interpreting performance scores between with and without live transcript conditions
    • 5.2Comparison of cognitive effort between with and without live transcript conditions
      • 5.2.1Fixation count per minute
      • 5.2.2Dwell time per minute
    • 5.3Visual processing pattern in RSI with live transcripts
      • 5.3.1Fixation count per minute of AOIs
      • 5.3.2Dwell time per minute of AOIs
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Live transcripts contribute to an improvement in the overall performance of interpreters
    • 6.2RSI with live transcripts is more cognitively demanding
    • 6.3Live transcripts attract the most visual attention
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 25 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.00038.yua
References (45)
References
Agrifoglio, Marjorie. 2004. “Sight translation and interpreting: A comparative analysis of constraints and failures.” Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 6.11: 43–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alonso Bacigalupe, L. 1999. “Visual contact in simultaneous interpreting: Results of an experimental study.” In Anovar/Anosar Estudios de Traducción e Interpretación, ed. by A. Álvarez Lugrís & A. Fernández Ocampo. 123–137. Vol. 11. Vigo: Servicio de Publicacións da Universidade de Vigo.Google Scholar
Amos, Rhona M., Kilian G. Seeber, and Martin J. Pickering. 2022. “Prediction during simultaneous interpreting: Evidence from the visual-world paradigm.” Cognition 2201: 104987. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Linda. 1979. Simultaneous interpretation: Contextual and translation aspects. Doctoral dissertation. Concordia University.Google Scholar
Balzani, Maurizio. 1990. “Le contact visuel en interprétation simultanée: resultats d’une expérience (Français–Italien).” In Aspects of Applied and Experimental Research on Conference Interpretation, ed. by L. Gran & C. Taylor. 93–100. Udine: Campanotto.Google Scholar
Brady, Mark. 1989. “Case studies in sight translation.” The Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Teaching Interpretation: 141–243.Google Scholar
Bühler, Hildegund. 1985. “Conference interpreting: A multichannel communication phenomenon.” Meta 30 (1): 49–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Sijia. 2017. “The construct of cognitive load in interpreting and its measurement.” Perspectives, 25(4): 640–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chmiel, Agnieszka, and Iwona Mazur. 2013. “Eye tracking sight translation performed by trainee interpreters.” Way, C.; S. Vandepitte; R. Meylaerts & M. Bartłomiejczyk. (eds.): 189–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chmiel, Agnieszka, Przemysław Janikowski, and Agnieszka Lijewska. 2020. “Multimodal processing in simultaneous interpreting with text: Interpreters focus more on the visual than the auditory modality.” Target 32(1): 37–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Desmet, Bart, Mieke Vandierendonck, and Bart Defrancq. 2018. “Simultaneous interpretation of numbers and the impact of technological support.” In Interpreting and technology, 13–27. Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Doherty, S., Martschuk, N., Goodman-Delahunty, J., and Hale, S. 2022. “An eye-movement analysis of overt visual attention during consecutive and simultaneous interpreting modes in a remotely interpreted investigative interview.” Frontiers in psychology: 1182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, M., Albl-Mikasa, M., Andermatt, K., Hunziker Heeb, A., and Lehr, C. 2020. “Cognitive load in processing ELF: Translators, interpreters, and other multilinguals.” Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 9(2): 217–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerver, David. 1969. “The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters.” In Proceedings of the 2nd Louisville Conference on rate and/or frequency controlled speech. Louisville (Kty), 162–184. University of Louisville.Google Scholar
Gieshoff, Anne Catherine. 2018. The impact of audio-visual speech input on work-load in simultaneous interpreting. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universität Mainz.Google Scholar
Gieshoff, Anne Catherine, and Andrea Hunziker Heeb. 2023. “Cognitive load and cognitive effort: Probing the psychological reality of a conceptual difference.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 2009. Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel, and Victoria Lei. 2020. Translation, effort and cognition. In The Routledge handbook of translation and cognition, 263–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel, and Anne Catherine Gieshoff. 2023. Effort in interpreting: A framework and its implications for empirical research. Presented at the Minds between Languages: An inner look into translation and interpreting , July 2023.Google Scholar
Holmqvist, Kenneth. 2011. Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ivanov, Konstantin, Kate Davies, and Boris Naimushin. 2014. “Teaching simultaneous interpreting with text.” Fighting the Fog of Multiculturalis. A Festschrift in Honour of Irina S. Alekseeva: 48–61.Google Scholar
Jesse, Alexandra, Nick Vrignaud, Michael M. Cohen, and Dominic W. Massaro. 2000. “The processing of information from multiple sources in simultaneous interpreting.” Interpreting 5(2): 95–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Just, M. A., and Carpenter, P. 1984. Using eye fixations to study reading comprehension. In New methods in reading comprehension research, ed. by D. E. Kieras and M. A. 151–182. Hillsdale, MI, USA: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Korpal, Paweł, and Katarzyna Stachowiak-Szymczak. 2018. “The whole picture: Processing of numbers and their context in simultaneous interpreting.” Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 54(3): 335–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “Combined problem triggers in simultaneous interpreting: Exploring the effect of delivery rate on processing and rendering numbers.” Perspectives 28(1): 126–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruger, Haidee. 2013. “Child and Adult Readers’ Processing of Foreignised Elements in Translated South African Picturebooks: An Eye-Tracking Study.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 25(2): 180–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuang, Huolingxiao, and Binghan Zheng. 2022. “Note-taking effort in video remote interpreting: effects of source speech difficulty and interpreter work experience.” Perspectives: 1–21.Google Scholar
Ma, Xingcheng. 2021. “Coping with syntactic complexity in English-Chinese sight translation by translation and interpreting students: An eye-tracking investigation.– Across Languages and Cultures 22(2): 192–213.Google Scholar
Ma, Xingcheng, Dechao Li, and Yu-Yin Hsu. 2021. “Exploring the impact of word order asymmetry on cognitive load during Chinese–English sight translation: Evidence from eye-movement data.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 33(1): 103–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Ann. 1993. “Teaching sight translation to future interpreters.” Translation: The vital link: 6–13.Google Scholar
Rennert, Sylvi. 2008. “Visual input in simultaneous interpreting.” Meta 53 (1): 204–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, Kilian G. 2011. “Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories – new models.” Interpreting 13(2): 176–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. “Multimodal input in simultaneous interpreting: An eye-tracking experiment.” In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference TRANSLATA, Translation and Interpreting Research: Yesterday–today–tomorrow, ed. by L. Zybatov, A. Petrova & M. Ustaszewski. 341–347. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2013. “Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Measures and methods.” Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 25(1): 18–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. “Multimodal processing in simultaneous interpreting.” In The handbook of translation and cognition, 461–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, Kilian G., Laura Keller, and Alexis Hervais-Adelman. 2020. “When the ear leads the eye–the use of text during simultaneous interpretation.” Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 35(10): 1480–1494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seubert, Sabine. 2019. Visuelle Informationen beim Simultandolmetschen: Eine Eyetracking-Studie (Vol. 471). Frank & Timme GmbH.Google Scholar
Stachowiak-Szymczak, Katarzyna, and Paweł Korpal. 2019. “Interpreting accuracy and visual processing of numbers in professional and student interpreters: An eye-tracking study.” Across Languages and Cultures 20(2): 235–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Leeds Interpreting Team. 2020. Marking Criteria for Consecutive Interpreting. University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Wang, Binhua. 2023. “Exploring information processing as a new research orientation beyond cognitive operations and their management in interpreting studies: taking stock and looking forward.” Perspectives: 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wehrmeyer, Jennifer. 2014. “Eye-tracking Deaf and hearing viewing of sign language-interpreted news broadcasts.” Journal of Eye Movement Research, 7(1). Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickens, Christopher D. 1984. Processing resources in attention. In Varieties of attention, ed. by Raja Parasuraman & David R. Davies. 63–102. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2002. “Multiple resources and performance prediction.” Theoretical issues in ergonomics science 3(2): 159–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar