Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation, Cognition & Behavior
Vol. 6:1 (2023) ► pp.3–28

Cognitive load and cognitive effort

Probing the psychological reality of a conceptual difference

ORCID logo | Zurich University of Applied Sciences
ORCID logo | Zurich University of Applied Sciences
The cognitive demands associated with performing a task involve at least two dimensions: (1) the load dimension that is related to the assumed task difficulty and (2) the effort dimension that reflects the resources invested in a task. This study considers whether this distinction is actually relevant to translators and interpreters when they report load and effort and, if so, how the assumed psychological reality of these two dimensions is related to task performance. In this study, professional translators and interpreters performed naturalistic tasks with comparable stimuli, working from English into German. After each task, they were asked to rate their experienced load and effort as part of the NASA Task Load Index. Their performance was measured by analysing process and product indicators that correspond in interpreting and translation. Results indicate that while self-reported load and effort are highly correlated, their relationships to process or product measures appear to be more complex.
Keywords: cognitive load, cognitive effort, translation professionals, interpreting professionals, task performance, NASA Task Load Index
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Cognitive Load and Cognitive Effort
    • 1.2The Relationship between Load and Effort in Self-Report Measures
    • 1.3The Relationship between Load or Effort and Performance Measures
  • 2.Study
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Stimuli
    • 2.3Procedure
    • 2.4Data Processing and Analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Relationship between Self-Reported Load and Effort
    • 3.2Relationship between Load, Effort and Product Measures in Interpreting
    • 3.3Relationship between Load, Effort and Process Measures in Interpreting
    • 3.4Relationship between Load, Effort and Product Measures in Translation
    • 3.5Relationship between load, effort and process measures in translation
  • 4.Disentangling Effort and Load
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00073.gie
References (55)
References
Alves, Fabio. 2007. ‘Cognitive Effort and Contextual Effect in Translation: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach’. Journal of Translation Studies 10 (1): 57–76.Google Scholar
Alves, Fabio, and José Luiz Gonçalves. 2013. ‘Investigating the Conceptual-Procedural Distinction in the Translation Process’. Target 25 (1): 107–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angell, James Rowland, and Helen Bradford Thompson. 1899. ‘A Study of the Relations between Certain Organic Processes and Consciousness.’ Psychological Review 6 (1): 32–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angelone, Erik, Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, and Gary Massey. 2016. ‘Cognitive Processes’. In Researching Translation and Interpreting, edited by Claudia V. Angelelli and Brian James Baer, 43–57. London: Routledge. [URL]
Angelone, Erik, and Álvaro Marín García. 2022. ‘Reconceptualizing Breaks in Translation: Breaking Down or Breaking Through? Translation & Interpreting 14(2), Art. 2. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
APA American Psychological Association. 2023. ‘Cognitive Process’. APA Dictionary of Psychology. [URL]. Accessed 20 January 2023.
Barrouillet, Pierre, Sophie Bernardin, and Valérie Camos. 2004. ‘Time Constraints and Resource Sharing in Adults’ Working Memory Spans.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133 (1): 83–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barrouillet, Pierre, Sophie Bernardin, Sophie Portrat, Evie Vergauwe, and Valérie Camos. 2007. ‘Time and Cognitive Load in Working Memory.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33 (3): 570–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2013. Praat. Doing Phonetics by Computer (version 5.3.51). [URL]
Chen, Sijia. 2017. ‘The Construct of Cognitive Load in Interpreting and Its Measurement’. Perspectives 25 (4): 640–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chmiel, Agnieszka, Agnieszka Szarkowska, Danijel Koržinek, Agnieszka Lijewska, Łukasz Dutka, Łukasz Brocki, and Krzysztof Marasek. 2017. ‘Ear–Voice Span and Pauses in Intra- and Interlingual Respeaking: An Exploratory Study into Temporal Aspects of the Respeaking Process’. Applied Psycholinguistics 38 (5): 1201–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008. ‘Word Frequency Data’. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). [URL]. Accessed 1 March 2022.
Díaz-Galaz, Stephanie, Presentación Padilla, and M. Teresa Bajo. 2015. ‘The Role of Advance Preparation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Comparison of Professional Interpreters and Interpreting Students’. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 17 (1): 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, Michaela Albl-Mikasa, Katrin Andermatt, Andrea Hunziker Heeb, and Caroline Lehr. 2020. ‘Cognitive Load in Processing ELF: Translators, Interpreters, and Other Multilinguals’. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 9 (2): 217–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, John. 2003. ‘Effect Displays in R for Generalised Linear Models’. Journal of Statistical Software 8 (15): 27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galy, Edith, Julie Paxion, and Catherine Berthelon. 2018. ‘Measuring Mental Workload with the NASA-TLX Needs to Examine Each Dimension Rather than Relying on the Global Score: An Example with Driving’. Ergonomics 61 (4): 517–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gieshoff, Anne Catherine. 2021. ‘Does It Help to See the Speaker’s Lip Movements? An Investigation of Cognitive Load and Mental Effort in Simultaneous Interpreting’. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 4 (1): 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gieshoff, Anne Catherine, and Michaela Albl-Mikasa. 2022. ‘Interpreting Accuracy Revisited: A Refined Approach to Interpreting Performance Analysis’. Perspectives. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gieshoff, Anne Catherine, Caroline Lehr, and Andrea Hunziker Heeb. 2021. ‘Stress, Cognitive, Emotional and Ergonomic Demands in Interpreting and Translation: A Review of Physiological Studies’. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8 (2): 404–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 2009. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training: Revised Edition. 2nd ed. Vol. 81. Benjamins Translation Library. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. ‘Testing the Effort Models’ Tightrope Hypothesis in Simultaneous Interpreting – A Contribution’. HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business 12 (23): 153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel, and Victoria Lei. 2021. ‘Translation, Effort and Cognition’. In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited by Fabio Alves and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, 1st ed. Routledge Handbooks in Translation and Interpreting Studies, 263–78. New York: Taylor and Francis. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hart, Sandra G., and Lowell E. Staveland. 1988. ‘Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research’. In Human Mental Workload, edited by Peter Hancock and Meshkati, 521: 139–83. Advances in Psychology. North Holland: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hertzum, Morten. 2021. ‘Associations among Workload Dimensions, Performance, and Situational Characteristics: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Task Load Index’. Behaviour & Information Technology, 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunziker Heeb, Andrea, Caroline Lehr, and Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow. 2021. ‘Situated Translators: Cognitive Load and the Role of Emotions’. In Advances in Cognitive Translation Studies, edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, Sanjun Sun, and Defeng Li, 47–65. Singapore: Springer Singapore. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian T. 2017. ‘Translators’ Use of Digital Resources during Translation’. HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business 561: 71–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jang, Hyesue, Ziyong Lin, and Cindy Lustig. 2020. ‘Losing Money and Motivation: Effects of Loss Incentives on Motivation and Metacognition in Younger and Older Adults’. Frontiers in Psychology 111 (July): 1489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. 1973. Attention and Effort. Prentice-Hall Series in Experimental Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
. 2013. Thinking, Fast and Slow. 1st pbk. ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Koehn, Philipp, and Christof Monz. 2006. ‘Manual and Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation between European Languages’. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation – StatMT ’06, 102. New York City, New York: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krings, Hans Peter. 2001. Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-Editing Processes. Trans. Geoffrey S. Koby, Gregory M. Shreve, Katja Mischerikow, and Sarah Litzer. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid. 2002. ‘Conference Interpreting: Quality in the Ears of the User’. Meta 46 (2): 394–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lacruz, Isabel. 2017. ‘Cognitive Effort in Translation, Editing, and Post-editing’. In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited by John W. Schwieter and Aline Ferreira, 1st ed., 386–401. Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leijten, Mariëlle, and Luuk Van Waes. 2013. ‘Keystroke Logging in Writing Research: Using Inputlog to Analyze and Visualize Writing Processes’. Written Communication 30 (3): 358–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2012. ‘Just a Matter of Scope. Mental Load in Translation Process Research’. Translation Spaces 1 (1): 169–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo, and José M. Cardona Guerra. 2019. ‘Translating in Fits and Starts: Pause Thresholds and Roles in the Research of Translation Processes’. Perspectives, 27 (4): 525–551. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paas, Fred, Juhani E. Tuovinen, Huib Tabbers, and Pascal W. M. Van Gerven. 2003. ‘Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory’. Educational Psychologist 38 (1): 63–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plevoets, Koen, and Bart Defrancq. 2018. ‘The Cognitive Load of Interpreters in the European Parliament: A Corpus-Based Study of Predictors for the Disfluency Uh(m) ’. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 20 (1): 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 2015. ‘Translating as Risk Management’. Journal of Pragmatics 851 (August): 67–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2020. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (version 3.6.3). Vienna, Austria. [URL]
Seeber, Kilian G. 2011. ‘Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting’. Interpreting 13 (2): 176–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. ‘Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Measures and Methods’. In Benjamins Current Topics, edited by Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, Susanne Göpferich, and Sharon O’Brien, 721:18–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin. 1999. Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis. Benjamins Translation Library 28. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shenhav, Amitai, Sebastian Musslick, Falk Lieder, Wouter Kool, Thomas L. Griffiths, Jonathan D. Cohen, and Matthew M. Botvinick. 2017. ‘Toward a Rational and Mechanistic Account of Mental Effort’. Annual Review of Neuroscience 40 (1): 99–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sun, Sanjun. 2015. ‘Measuring Translation Difficulty: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations’. Across Languages and Cultures 16 (1): 29–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sun, Sanjun, and Gregory M. Shreve. 2014. ‘Measuring Translation Difficulty: An Empirical Study’. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 26 (1): 98–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J. 2011. ‘Cognitive Load Theory’. Psychology of Learning and Motivation – Advances in Research and Theory 551: 37–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweller, John. 2010. ‘Element Interactivity and Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load’. Educational Psychology Review 22 (2): 123–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickens, Christopher D. 2008. ‘Multiple Resources and Mental Workload’. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50 (3): 449–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickham, Hadley. 2016. Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Use R! Cham: Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickham, Hadley, Mara Averick, Jennifer Bryan, Winston Chang, Lucy McGowan, Romain François, Garrett Grolemund, et al. 2019. ‘Welcome to the Tidyverse’. Journal of Open Source Software 4 (43): 1686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, Mark S., Karel A. Brookhuis, Christopher D. Wickens, and Peter A. Hancock. 2015. ‘State of Science: Mental Workload in Ergonomics’. Ergonomics 58 (1): 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, Mark S., and Neville Anthony Stanton. 2004. ‘Mental Workload’. In Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods, edited by Neville Anthony Stanton, Alan Hedge, Karel Brookhuis, Eduardo Salas, and Hal W. Hendrick, 0 ed. CRC Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwischenberger, Cornelia. 2010. ‘Quality Criteria in Simultaneous Interpreting: An International vs. a National View’. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 151: 127–42. [URL]Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Chen, Sijia & Jan-Louis Kruger
2024. A computer-assisted consecutive interpreting workflow: training and evaluation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Xiao & Ying Cui
2024. The impact of text type on Chinese-English translation effort: an investigation with reference to translation entropy. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11:1 DOI logo
Yuan, Lu & Binhua Wang
2024. Eye-tracking the processing of visual input of live transcripts in remote simultaneous interpreting. FORUM. Revue internationale d’interprétation et de traduction / International Journal of Interpretation and Translation 22:1 ► pp. 118 ff. DOI logo
Moratto, Riccardo & Zhimiao Yang
2023. Probing the cognitive load of consecutive interpreters. Translation and Interpreting Studies DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.