Cover not available
Article published In:
Technology
Edited by Franz Pöchhacker and Minhua Liu
[Interpreting 26:2] 2024
► pp. 282–315

The augmented interpreter

An exploratory study of the usability of augmented reality technology in interpreting

ORCID logo | Zurich University of Applied Sciences
ORCID logo | Zurich University of Applied Sciences
ORCID logo | Zurich University of Applied Sciences
Computer-assisted interpreting (CAI) tools use speech recognition and machine translation to display numbers and names on a screen or automatically suggest renditions for technical terms. One way to improve the usability of CAI tools may be to use augmented reality (AR) technology, which allows information to be displayed wherever convenient. Instead of having to look down at a tablet or a laptop, the interpreter can see the term or number projected directly into their field of vision, allowing them to maintain their focus on the speaker and the audio input. In this study, we investigated the affordances of AR in simultaneous interpreting. Nine professional conference interpreters each interpreted two technical talks: one with numerals, proper nouns and suggestions for technical terms automatically shown on an AR display and the other with an MS Word glossary on a laptop. The results indicate a hypothetical use case for AR technologies in interpreting but highlight the practical limitations, such as a lack of comfort in wearing the AR equipment, a lack of ergonomic and intuitive interaction with virtual objects, and distraction and interference with the interpreting process in the form of additional visual input.
Keywords: computer-assisted interpreting, simultaneous interpreting, speech recognition, augmented reality, usability
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • Computer-assisted interpreting
    • CAI with AR technology
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Source texts and terminology
    • Equipment and application
    • Procedure
    • Data analysis
    • Participants’ notes
    • Rendition of critical items
    • Interviews
  • Results
    • Familiarity with the speech topics and terminology management software
    • Preparation
    • Rendering of critical items
    • Preferred position of the term box and technical issues
    • Experiences using the AR technology
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 3 October 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00108.gie
References (38)
References
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2013). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (5.3.51) [computer software]. [URL] (accessed 27 November 2023).
Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale. In P. Jordan, W. B. Thomas, I. L. McClelland & B. Weerdmeester (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry. London: CRC Press, 189–194.Google Scholar
Chang, C., Wu, M. M. & Kuo, T. G. (2018). Conference interpreting and knowledge acquisition: How professional interpreters tackle unfamiliar topics. Interpreting 20 (2), 204–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, H.-Y., Binali, T., Liang, J.-C., Chiou, G.-L., Cheng, K.-H., Lee, S. W.-Y. & Tsai, C.-C. (2022). Ten years of augmented reality in education: A meta-analysis of (quasi-) experimental studies to investigate the impact. Computers & Education 191 1, 104641. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chung, T. M. & Nation, P. (2004). Identifying technical vocabulary. System 32 (2), 251–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clough, S. & Duff, M. C. (2020). The role of gesture in communication and cognition: Implications for understanding and treating neurogenic communication disorders. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 14 1, 323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corpas Pastor, G. (2022). Technology solutions for interpreters: The VIP system. Hermēneus. Revista de Traducción e Interpretación 23 1, 91–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dehaene, S. (2011). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics (2nd edition). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Desmet, B., Vandierendonck, M. & Defrancq, B. (2018). Simultaneous interpretation of numbers and the impact of technological support. In C. Fantinuoli (Ed.), Interpreting and technology. Berlin: Language Science Press, 13–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fantinuoli, C. (2016). InterpretBank: Redefining computer-assisted interpreting tools. Proceedings of the 38th Conference Translating and the Computer. London: AsLing, 42–52.Google Scholar
(2017). Speech recognition in the interpreter workstation. Proceedings of the 39th Conference Translating and the Computer. London: AsLing. 25–34. [URL]
Fantinuoli, C., Marchesini, G., Landan, D. & Horak, L. (2022). KUDO Interpreter Assist: Automated real-time support for remote interpretation. arXiv:2201.01800 [Cs]. [URL]
Frittella, F. M. (2023). Usability research for interpreter-centred technology: The case study of SmarTerp. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frittella, F. M. & Rodríguez, S. (2022). Putting SmartTerp to test: A tool for the challenges of remote interpreting. INContext: Studies in Translation and Interculturalism 2 (2), 137–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, D. (2002). Les termes techniques en interprétation simultanée. Meta 30 (3), 199–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Minor, B. L., Elliott, V., Fernandez, M., O’Neal, L., McLeod, L., Delacqua, G., Delacqua, F., Kirby, J. & Duda, S. N. (2019). The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 95 1, 103208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hart, S. G. & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology 52 1, 139–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, H. (2013). The interpreter’s glossary in simultaneous interpreting: A survey. Interpreting 15 (1), 74–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kipman, A. & Pollefeys, M. (2019, 3 October). Hololens 2: Unpacked. [URL] (accessed 27 November 2023).
Kurz, I. (2002). Conference interpreting: Quality in the ears of the user. Meta 46 (2), 394–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mckee, S. P. & Nakayama, K. (1984). The detection of motion in the peripheral visual field. Vision Research 24 (1), 25–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, C. D. & Hanson, T. A. (2018). Interpreter traits and the relationship with technology and visibility. Translation and Interpreting Studies 13 (3), 366–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Microsoft (2023). Hololens 2 technical specifications. HoloLens 2 1. [URL] (accessed 27 November 2023).
Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A. & Kishino, F. (1995). Augmented reality: A class of displays on the reality–virtuality continuum. In H. Das (Ed.), Proc. SPIE 2351. Boston: SPIE, 282–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parekh, P., Patel, S., Patel, N. & Shah, M. (2020). Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmented reality in medicine, retail, and games. Visual Computing for Industry, Biomedicine, and Art 3 (1), 21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prandi, B. (2015). The use of CAI tools in interpreters’ training: A pilot study. Proceedings of the 37th Conference Translating and the Computer. London: AsLing, 48–57.Google Scholar
(2023). Computer-assisted simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive-experimental study on terminology. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (3.6.3) [computer software]. [URL] (accessed 27 November 2023).
Saeed, M. A., González, E. R., Korybski, T., Davitti, E. & Braun, S. (2022). Connected yet distant: An experimental study into the visual needs of the interpreter in remote simultaneous interpreting. In M. Kurosu (Ed.), Human–computer interaction. User experience and behavior. Cham: Springer, 214–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seubert, S. (2019). Visuelle Informationen beim Simultandolmetschen: Eine Eyetracking-Studie. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Vater, C., Kredel, R. & Hossner, E.-J. (2017). Detecting target changes in multiple object tracking with peripheral vision: More pronounced eccentricity effects for changes in form than in motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 43 (5), 903–913. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VERBI Software (2021). MAXDA. Software für qualitative Datenanalyse [Windows]. VERBI Software. [URL] (accessed 27 November 2023).
Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, H.-K., Lee, S. W.-Y., Chang, H.-Y. & Liang, J.-C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education 62 1, 41–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, R. (2018). Corpus-based terminological preparation for simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting 20 (1), 33–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, K. & Gigliobianco, S. (2018). Present? Remote? Remotely present! New technological approaches to remote simultaneous conference interpreting. In C. Fantinuoli (Ed.), Interpreting and technology. Berlin: Language Science Press, 119–139.Google Scholar
Zwischenberger, C. (2010). Quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: An international vs a national view. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 15 1, 127–142.Google Scholar