Article In:
Interpreting: Online-First Articles

The role of expertise in coping with accents during simultaneous interpreting

A pupillometric study

 | University of Warsaw
 | University of Warsaw
 | University of Warsaw
 | University of Warsaw
Foreign-accented speech is one of the factors that add to the cognitive load exerted during conference interpreting. In the present study, we investigated the effect of different accents on speech processing during this task in addition to the respective roles played by language proficiency and expertise. We therefore designed a pupillometric study in which we tested both students and professional interpreters. The results show that, throughout the trial, the cognitive effort associated with accented speech processing, as measured by proportional pupil size relative to baseline, was greater in the case of the students. Furthermore, only the students seemed to be sensitive to the type of accented speech applied. At the same time, all the participants demonstrated a similar pupil activation pattern in each trial, which suggests the presence of a generalized ‘cognitive rhythm’ that pertains to the interpreting task. Finally, the results point to expertise rather than language proficiency as a major factor in mitigating cognitive effort in simultaneous conference interpreting.
Keywords: cognitive effort, cognitive load, expertise, simultaneous interpreting, pupillometry, accented speech
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Foreign accent and speech comprehension
    • 1.2Measuring cognitive effort
    • 1.3The current study
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Materials
    • 2.3Procedure
    • 2.4Data analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1General overview of the data
    • 3.2Statistical models based on Growth Curve Analysis
      • 3.2.1Global effects — analysis of the whole trial
      • 3.2.2Local effects — analysis of the first 60 seconds
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Differences between professionals and students
    • 4.2Responses to different accented speeches
    • 4.3Language proficiency, language use and expertise
    • 4.4Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (71)
References
AIIC (2002). Interpreter workload study — full report. [URL] (accessed 11 August 2023).
Albl-Mikasa, M. (2015). ELF speakers’ restricted power of expression: Implications for interpreters’ processing. In M. Ehrensberger-Dow, B. Englund Dimitrova, S. Hubscher-Davidson & U. Norberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation: Acts and events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 43–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alves, F. (2005). Ritmo cognitivo, meta-reflexão e experiência: parâmetros de análise processual no desempenho de tradutores novatos e experientes. In A. Pagano, C. Magalhaes & F. Alves (Eds.), Competência em tradução: cognição e discurso. Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG, 109–169.Google Scholar
Anderson-Hsieh, J., Johnson, R. & Koehler, K. (1992). The relationship between native speaker judgments of nonnative pronunciation and deviance in segmentals, prosody, and syllable structure. Language Learning 42 1, 529–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atagi, E. & Bent, T. (2015). Relationship between listeners’ nonnative speech recognition and categorization abilities. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 137 1, EL44–EL50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. (2018). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using “Eigen” and S4. R package (version 1.1–17). [URL]
Bent, T. & Bradlow, A. (2003). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 114 1, 1600–1610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2022). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. [URL]
Boos, M., Kobi, M., Elmer, S. & Jäncke, L. (2022). The influence of experience on cognitive load during simultaneous interpretation. Brain & Language 234 1, 105185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapman, L. R. & Hallowell, B. (2015). A novel pupillometric method for indexing word difficulty in individuals with and without aphasia. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 58 1, 1508–1520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheung, A. (2003). Omission in simultaneous interpreting. Forum 10 (2), 19–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clarke, C. M. & Garrett, M. F. (2004). Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116 1, 3647–3658. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daguet, I., Bouhassira, D. & Gronfier, C. (2019). Baseline pupil diameter is not a reliable biomarker of subjective sleepiness. Frontiers in Neurology 10 1, Art. 108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Darò, V., Lambert, S. & Fabbro, F. (1996). Conscious monitoring of attention during simultaneous interpretation. Interpreting 1 1, 101–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Bot, K. (2000). Simultaneous interpreting as language production. In B. Englund Dimitrova & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.), Language processing and simultaneous interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 65–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duanmu, S. (2000). The phonology of standard Chinese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, M. A., Teubner-Rhodes, S. & Vaden, K. I. (2016). Is listening in noise worth it? The neurobiology of speech recognition in challenging listening conditions. Ear and Hearing 37 (Suppl 1), 101S–110S. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerver, D. (1976). Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research. New York: Gardner Press, 165–207.Google Scholar
Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 196–214.Google Scholar
Grabbi, L. (2010). The repercussions of native and non-native English accents on perceived quality and comprehension in conference interpreting. Master’s thesis, University of Tartu.
Granholm, E., Asarnow, R. F., Sarkin, A. J. & Dykes, K. L. (1996). Pupillary responses index cognitive resource limitations. Psychophysiology 33 (4), 457–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gunning, Robert. (1952). The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Hanulíková, A. & Weber, A. (2012). Sink positive: Linguistic experience with the substitutions influences nonnative word recognition. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 74 (3), 613–629. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harms, M. P. M., Finucane, C., Pérez-Denia, L., Juraschek, S. P., van Wijnen, V. K., Lipsitz, L. A., van Lieshout, J. J. & Wieling, W. (2021). Systemic and cerebral circulatory adjustment within the first 60 s after active standing: An integrative physiological view. Autonomic Neuroscience 231 1, 102756. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hess, E. H. & Polt, J. M. (1964). Pupil size in relation to mental activity during simple problem-solving. Science 143 (3611), 1190–1192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, C. & Thøgersen, J. (2017). Foreign accent, cognitive load and intelligibility of EMI lectures. Nordic Journal of English Studies 16 (3), 107–137. [URL]. DOI logo
Kadem, M., Herrmann, B., Rodd, J. M. & Johnsrude, I. S. (2020). Pupil dilation is sensitive to semantic ambiguity and acoustic degradation. Trends in Hearing 24 1, 2331216520964068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahane, E. (2013). Thoughts on the quality of interpretation. Is there a consensus on what quality is and how to define and assess it objectively? [URL] (accessed 11 August 2023).
Kahneman, D. & Beatty, J. (1966). Pupil diameter and load on memory. Science 154 (3756), 1583–1585. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krämer, M. (2009). The phonology of Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laeng, B., Sirois, S. & Gredebäck, G. (2012). Pupillometry: A window to the preconscious? Perspectives on. Psychological Science 7 (1), 18–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, S. (1992). Shadowing. Méta 37 1, 263–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R. (2019). Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. [URL]
Lin, I. I., Chang, F. A. & Kuo, F. (2013). The impact of non-native accented English on rendition accuracy in simultaneous interpreting. Translation & Interpreting 5 (2), 30–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luce, P. A. & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing 19 1, 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, D. J. & Van Engen, K. J. (2020). Task-evoked pupil response for accurately recognized accented speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 147 (2), EL151–EL156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mirman, D. (2014). Growth curve analysis and visualization using R. London: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, B., Frauenfelder, U., Casado, B. & Künzli, A. (2000). Searching to define expertise in interpreting. In B. Englund Dimitrova & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.), Language processing and simultaneous interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 107–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oberauer, K. (2009). Interference between storage and processing in working memory: Feature overwriting, not similarity-based competition. Memory & Cognition 37 (3), 346–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paas, F., Renkl, A. & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist 38 1, 1–4. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peelle, J. (2018). Listening effort: How the cognitive consequences of acoustic challenge are reflected in brain and behavior. Ear and Hearing 39 (2), 204–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Kramer, S. E., Eckert, M. A., Edwards, B., Hornsby, B. W., Humes, L. E., Lemke, U., Lunner, T., Matthen, M., Mackersie, C. L., Naylor, G., Phillips, N. A., Richter, M., Rudner, M., Sommers, M. S., Tremblay, K. L. & Wingfield, A. (2016). Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: The framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear and Hearing 37 (Suppl 1), 5S–27S. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piquado, T., Isaacowitz, D. & Wingfield, A. (2010). Pupillometry as a measure of cognitive effort in younger and older adults. Psychophysiology 47 1, 560–569. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Porretta, V., Tremblay, A. & Bolger, P. (2017). Got experience? PMN amplitudes to foreign-accented speech modulated by listener experience. Journal of Neurolinguistics 44 1, 54–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Porretta, V., Tucker, B. V. & Järvikivi, J. (2016). The influence of gradient foreign accentedness and listener experience on word recognition. Journal of Phonetics 58 1, 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prior, A. & Gollan, T. H. (2011). Good language-switchers are good task switchers: Evidence from Spanish–English and Mandarin–English bilinguals. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 17 1, 682–691. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Riad, T. (2014). The phonology of Swedish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Richter, M. (2016). The moderating effect of success importance on the relationship between listening demand and listening effort. Ear and Hearing 37 (Suppl 1), 111S–117S. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romero-Rivas, C., Martin, C. D. & Costa, A. (2015). Processing changes when listening to foreign-accented speech. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9 1, Art. 167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schilperoord, J. & Sanders, T. (1997). Pauses, cognitive rhythm and discourse structure: An empirical study of discourse production. In: W. A. Liebert, G. Redeker & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 247–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stachowiak-Szymczak, K. & Korpal, P. (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
Tiselius, E. (2013). Experience and expertise in conference interpreting: an investigation of Swedish conference interpreters. PhD dissertation. University of Bergen.
Tiselius, E. & Sneed, K. (2020). Gaze and eye movement in dialogue interpreting: An eye-tracking study. Bilingualism — Language and Cognition 23 ( 4 ), 780–787. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ushey, K. (2018). Package “RcppRoll”, Efficient rolling/windowed operations. RcppRoll.pdf ([URL]).
Van Engen, K. & McLaughlin, D. (2018). Eyes and ears: Using eye tracking and pupillometry to understand challenges to speech recognition. Hearing Research 369 1, 56–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Engen, K. J. & Peelle, J. E. (2014). Listening effort and accented speech. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8 1, Art. 577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verreyt, N., Woumans, E., Vandelanotte, D., Szmalec, A. & Duyck, W. (2015). The influence of language switching experience on the bilingual executive control advantage. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vieira, L. N. (2014). Indices of cognitive effort in machine translation post-editing. Machine Translation 28 (3), 187–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, H., Yu, Z. & Wang, X. (2024). Expertise differences in cognitive interpreting: A meta-analysis of eye tracking studies across four decades. Wiley Interdisciplinary Review of Cognitive Science 15 (1), e1667. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weber, A. & Cutler, A. (2004). Lexical competition in non-native spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 50 1, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whyatt, B., Stachowiak, K. & Kajzer-Wietrzny, M. (2016). Similar and different: Cognitive rhythm and effort in translation and paraphrasing. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52 (2), 175–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wieling, W., van Twist, D. J. L., van Wijnen, V. K. & Harms, M. P. M. (2021). Spectrum of hemodynamic responses in the first 60 seconds after active standing up: Importance of time course of blood pressure changes and definitions. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 22 (11), 2401–2403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winn, M. B., Wendt, D., Koelewijn, T. & Kuchinsky, S. E. (2018). Best practices and advice for using pupillometry to measure listening effort: An introduction for those who want to get started. Trends in Hearing 22 1, 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xie, X., Weatherholtz, K., Bainton, L., Rowe, E., Burchill, Z., Liu, L. & Jaeger, T. F. (2018). Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented speech and its transfer to an unfamiliar talker. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 143 (4), 2013–2031. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yagura, H., Tanaka, H. & Nakamura, S. (2024). Effects of cognitive load and years of experience on phase-amplitude coupling in simultaneous interpretation. bioRxiv 2024.05.03.592346. DOI logo (preprint).Google Scholar
Yang, S. (2019). Investigating the effect of speech rate on the cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting with text. Doctoral thesis, University of Macau.
Zekveld, A. A. & Kramer, S. E. (2014). Cognitive processing load across a wide range of listening conditions: Insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology 51 1, 277–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E. & Festen, J. M. (2010). Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: The influence of sentence intelligibility. Ear and Hearing 31 1, 480–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar