Cover not available
Article published In:
Interdisciplinarity in Translation and Interpreting Process Research
Edited by Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, Susanne Göpferich and Sharon O'Brien
[Target 25:1] 2013
► pp. 18–32

Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting

Measures and methods

| University of Geneva, Switserland

The mental effort required to perform a simultaneous interpreting task or the cognitive load generated by it has attracted the interest of many a researcher in the field. To date, however, there is little agreement on the most suitable method to measure this phenomenon. In this contribution, I set out to discuss four of the most common methods of measuring cognitive load and the way in which they have been applied in interpreting research, providing examples for each and highlighting their respective advantages and disadvantages. The main focus of the contribution will be on pupillometry, a psycho-physiological method I deem to be among the most promising approaches to objectively measure cognitive load during simultaneous interpreting in real time.

Keywords: simultaneous interpreting, cognitive load, mental effort, analytical methods, subjective methods, performance methods, psycho-physiological methods, methodology, pupillometry
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Measuring cognitive load
    • 2.1Cognitive load in interpreting research: Analytical methods
    • 2.2Cognitive load in interpreting research: Subjective methods
    • 2.3Cognitive load in interpreting research: Performance methods
    • 2.4Cognitive load in interpreting research: Psycho-psychological methods
  • 3.Pupillometry
    • 3.1The pupil
    • 3.2The technology
    • 3.3Using pupillometry to measure cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting
    • 3.4Potential and limitations of pupillometry in simultaneous interpreting
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 March 2013
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.03see
References
Andreassi, John L.
2000 Psychophysiology: Human Behavior and Physiological Response, 4th ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bär, Klaus-Jürgen, Michael K. Boettger, Silke Till, Julia Dolicek, and Heinrich Sauer
2005 “Lateralization of Pupillary Light Reflex Parameters.” Clinical Neuropsychology 1161: 790–798.Google Scholar
Barik, Henri C.
1969 A Study of Simultaneous Interpretation. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Beatty, Jackson
1982 “Task Evoked Pupillary Responses, Processing Load, and the Structure of Processing Resources.” Psychological Bulletin 91 (2): 276–292.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia
2001 “Think-Aloud Protocols in Translation Research: Achievements, Limits, Future Prospects.” Target 13 (2): 214–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, John L.
1968 “Load and Pupillary Changes in Continuous Processing Tasks.” British Journal of Psychology 59 (3): 265–271.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Robert J., Hongyu Zhang, and Paul D.R. Gamlin
2003 “Characteristics of the Pupillary Light Reflex in the Alert Rhesus Monkey.” Journal of Neurophysiology 891: 3179–3189.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Groot, Annette M.B.
1997 “The Cognitive Study of Translation and Interpretation. Three Approaches.” In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain, and Michael K. McBeath, 25–56. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
2000 “A Complex-skill Approach to Translation and Interpreting.” In Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, 53–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, Anders K., and Herbert A. Simon
1984 Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel
1995 Regards sur la recherche en interprétation de conférence. Lille: Presses universitaires de Lille.Google Scholar
1997 “Conference Interpreting as a Cognitive Management Problem.” In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Joseph H. Danks, Stephen B. Fountain, Michael K. McBeath, and Gregory M. Shreve, 196–214. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
1999 “Testing the Effort Models’ Tightrope Hypothesis in Simultaneous Interpreting — A Contribution.” Hermes 231: 153–172.Google Scholar
2011 “Errors, Omissions and Infelicities in Broadcast Interpreting: Preliminary Findings from a Case Study.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research, ed. by Birgitta Englund Dimitrova, Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius, 201–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gopher, Daniel, and Rolf Braune
1984 “On the Psychophysics of Workload: Why Bother with Subjective Measures?” Human Factors 261: 519–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granholm, Eric, Robert F. Asarnow, Andrew J. Sarkin, and Karen L. Dykes
1996 “Pupillary Responses Index Cognitive Resource Limitations.” Psychophysiology 331: 457–461.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haapalainen, Eija, SeungJun Kim, Jodi F. Forlizzi, and Anind K. Dey
2010 “Psycho-Physiological Measures for Assessing Cognitive Load.” In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, 301–310.Copenhagen. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hervais-Adelman, Alexis G., Barbara Moser-Mercer, and Narly Golestani
2011 “Executive Control of Language in the Bilingual Brain: Integrating the Evidence from Neuroimaging to Neuropsychology.” Frontiers in Psychology 2 (234): 1–8.Google Scholar
Hoeks, Bert, and Willem J. M. Levelt
1993 “Pupillary Dilation as a Measure of Attention: A Quantitative System Analysis.” Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 251: 16–26.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyönä, Jukka, Jorma Tommola, and Anna-Mari Alaja
1995 “Pupil Dilation as a Measure of Processing Load in Simultaneous Interpreting and Other Language Tasks.” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 48A (3): 598–612.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivanova, Adelina
2000 “The Use of Retrospection in Research on Simultaneous Interpreting.” In Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, 27–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel
1973 Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Jackson Beatty
1966 “Pupil Diameter and Load on Memory.” Science 1541: 1583–1585.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Bernard Tursky, David Shapiro, and Andrew Crider
1969 “Pupillary, Heart Rate, and Skin Resistance Changes during a Mental Task.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 79 (1): 164–167.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klingner, Jeff
2010 Measuring Cognitive Load during Visual Tasks by Combining Pupillometry and Eye Tracking. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stanford University Computer Science Department.Google Scholar
Klingner, Jeff, Rakshit Kumar, and Pat Hanrahan
2008 “Measuring the Task-Evoked Pupillary Response with a Remote Eye Tracker.” ETRA 2008: Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, 69–72. Savannah, Georgia: ACM.Google Scholar
Lamberger-Felber, Heike
2001 “Text-Oriented Research into Interpreting: Examples from a Case-Study.” In Hermes 261: 39–64.Google Scholar
Lowenstein, Otto, and Irene E. Loewenfeld
1962 “The Pupil.” In The Eye, Vol. 3, Muscular Mechanisms, ed. by Hugh Davson, 231–267. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Massaro, Dominic W., and Miriam Shlesinger
1997 “Information Processing and a Computational Approach to the Study of Simultaneous Interpretation.” Interpreting 1 (1/2): 13–53.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazza, Cristina
2000 Numbers in Simultaneous Interpretation. Unpublished graduation thesis, Universita degli Studi di Bologna, SSLMIT, Forli.Google Scholar
Miller, George A.
1956 “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information.” Psychological Review 631: 81–97.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mital, Anil, and Majorkumar Govindaraju
1999 “Is It Possible to Have a Single Measure for all Work?” International Journal of Industrial Engineering Theory 61: 190–195.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Don
2004 “On-line Methods in Language Processing: Introduction and Historical Review.” In The On-line Study of Sentence Comprehension: Eyetracking, EPRs and Beyond,, ed. by Manuel Carreiras and Charles Clifton Jr., 15–32. Hove: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara
1997 “Beyond Curiosity. Can Interpreting Research Meet the Challenge?.” In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Joseph H. Danks, Stephen B. Fountain, Michael K. McBeath, and Gregory M. Shreve, 176–195. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara, Ulrich Frauenfelder, Beatriz Casado, and Alexander Künzli
2000 “Searching to Define Expertise in Interpreting.” In Language Processing and Simultaneous Interpreting, ed. by Birgitta Englund Dimitrova, and Kenneth Hyltenstam, 107–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oléron, Pierre, and Hubert Nanpon
1965 “Recherches sur la traduction simultanée.” Journal de psychologie normale et pathologique 621: 73–94.Google Scholar
Paas, Fred G.W.C., and Jeroen J.G. Merrienboer
1993 “The Efficiency of Instructional Conditions: An Approach to Combine Mental Effort and Performance Measures.” Human Factors 351: 737–743. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paas, Fred G.W.C., Juhani E. Tuovinen, Huib K. 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
Peavler, Scott W.
1974 “Pupil Size, Information Overload, and Performance Differences.” Psychophysiology 111: 559–566.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petsche, Hellmuth, Susan C. Etlinger, and Oliver Filz
1993 “Brain Electrical Mechanisms of Bilingual Speech Management: An Initial Investigation.” Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 861: 385–394.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
1994 Simultandolmetschen als komplexes Handeln. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Poock, Gary K.
1973 “Information Processing vs. Pupil Diameter.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 371: 1000–1002.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Price, Cathy J., David W. Green, Roswitha Von Studnitz
1999 “A Functional Imaging Study of Translation and Language Switching.” Brain 122 (12): 2221–2235.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony D.
2008 “On Omission in Simultaneous Interpreting: Risk Analysis of a Hidden Effort.” In Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: A Tribute to Daniel Gile, ed. by Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman, and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 83–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rinne, Juha O., Jorma Tommola, Matti Laine, Bernd J. Krause, Daniela Schmidt, Valtteri Kaasinen, Mika Teräs, Hannu Sipilä, and Marianna Sunnari
2000 “The Translating Brain: Cerebral Activation Patterns During Simultaneous Interpreting.” Neuroscience Letters 2941: 85–88.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam
2000 “Interpreting as a Cognitive Process: How can we know what happens?” In Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, 3–15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schluroff, Michael
1982 “Pupil Responses to Grammatical Complexity of Sentences.” Brain and Language 171: 133–145.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schultheis, Holger, and Anthony Jameson
2004 “Assessing Cognitive Load in Adaptive Hypermedia Systems: Physiological and Behavioral Methods.” In Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-Based Systems: Proceedings of AH 2004, ed. by Wolfgang Nejdl and Paul De Bra, 225–234. Berlin: Springer.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, Kilian G.
2007 “Thinking outside the Cube: Modeling Language Processing Tasks in a Multiple Resource Paradigm.” Interspeech 2007, Antwerp, Belgium. 1382–1385.Google Scholar
2011 “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Existing Theories — New Models.” Interpreting 13 (2): 176–204.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, Kilian G., and Dirk Kerzel
2012 “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Model Meets Data.” International Journal of Bilingualism 16 (2): 228–242.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin
2001 “Translation Studies and Cognitive Science: Do we Need each other?” CTIS Occasional Papers 11: 113–126.Google Scholar
2003 “Models of the Interpreting Process.” In Avances en la investigación sobre la interpretación, ed. by Angela Collados Aís and José Antonio Sabio Panilla, 29–91. Granada: Editorial Comares.Google Scholar
Stelmack, Robert M., and Nathan Mandelzys
1975 “Extraversion and Pupillary Response to Affective and Taboo Words.” Psychophysiology 121: 536–540.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tauchmanová, Jana
2011 Daniel Gile´s Effort Model in Simultaneous Interpreting. Unpublished MA thesis, Institute of Translation Studies, Charles University, Prague.Google Scholar
Tommola, Jorma and Pekka Niemi
1986 “Mental Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: An Online Pilot Study.” In Nordic Research in Text Linguistics and Discourse Analysis, ed. by Lars S. Evensen, 171–184. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
Van Gerven, Pascal W.M., Fred Paas, Jeroen J.G. van Merrienboer, and Henk Schmidt
2003 “Memory Load and the Cognitive Pupillary Response in Aging.” Psychophysiology 411: 167–174.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickens, Christopher D.
1984 “Processing Resources in Attention.” In Varieties of Attention, ed. by Raja Parasuraman and 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
Woodworth, Robert S.
1899 “The Accuracy of Voluntary Movement.” Psychological Review 3 (Suppl. 13): 1–119.Google Scholar
Yin, Bo, Fang Chen, Natalie Ruiz, and Eliathamby Ambikairajah
2008 “Speech-Based Cognitive Load Monitoring System.” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2041–2044. Las Vegas, Nevada.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 50 other publications

Ahrens, Barbara
2017. Interpretation and Cognition. In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ► pp. 445 ff. DOI logo
Appel, Tobias, Peter Gerjets, Stefan Hoffmann, Korbinian Moeller, Manuel Ninaus, Christian Scharinger, Natalia Sevcenko, Franz Wortha & Enkelejda Kasneci
2023. Cross-Task and Cross-Participant Classification of Cognitive Load in an Emergency Simulation Game. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 14:2 ► pp. 1558 ff. DOI logo
Appel, Tobias, Kevin Kärcher & Hans-Dieter Körner
2023. 2023 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Bóna, Judit & Mária Bakti
2020. The effect of cognitive load on temporal and disfluency patterns of speech. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 32:3 ► pp. 482 ff. DOI logo
Chang, Vincent Chieh-Ying & I-Fei Chen
2023. Translation directionality and the Inhibitory Control Model: a machine learning approach to an eye-tracking study. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Chen, Fang, Jianlong Zhou, Yang Wang, Kun Yu, Syed Z. Arshad, Ahmad Khawaji & Dan Conway
2016. Applications of Cognitive Load Measurement. In Robust Multimodal Cognitive Load Measurement [Human–Computer Interaction Series, ], ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Sijia
2017. The construct of cognitive load in interpreting and its measurement. Perspectives 25:4 ► pp. 640 ff. DOI logo
Combe, Christophe & Dejan Stosic
2024. Processing manner under high cognitive pressure: Evidence from French–English and English–French simultaneous interpreting. Language and Cognition ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
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 ► pp. 215824402311558 ff. DOI logo
de Baets, Pauline & Gert de Sutter
2023. How do translators select among competing (near-)synonyms in translation?. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 35:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Defrancq, Bart, Koen Plevoets & Cédric Magnifico
2015. Connective Items in Interpreting and Translation: Where Do They Come From?. In Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2015 [Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, 3], ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
Doherty, Stephen, Natalie Martschuk, Jane Goodman-Delahunty & Sandra Hale
2022. An Eye-Movement Analysis of Overt Visual Attention During Consecutive and Simultaneous Interpreting Modes in a Remotely Interpreted Investigative Interview. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta & Elisabet Tiselius
2016. Cognitive aspects of community interpreting. Toward a process model. In Reembedding Translation Process Research [Benjamins Translation Library, 128], ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
García, Álvaro Marín
2021. Bridging the epistemological gap. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8:2 ► pp. 462 ff. DOI logo
Giustini, Deborah
2020. Interpreter training in Japanese higher education: An innovative method for the promotion of linguistic instrumentalism?. Linguistics and Education 56 ► pp. 100792 ff. DOI logo
Goodman-Delahunty, Jane, Natalie Martschuk, Sandra B. Hale & Susan E. Brandon
2020. Interpreted Police Interviews: A Review of Contemporary Research. In Advances in Psychology and Law [Advances in Psychology and Law, 5], ► pp. 83 ff. DOI logo
Gumul, Ewa
2021. Explicitation and cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 23:1 ► pp. 45 ff. DOI logo
Halverson, Sandra L.
2017. Multimethod Approaches. In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ► pp. 193 ff. DOI logo
Hu, Ting, Xinyu Wang & Haiming Xu
2022. Eye-Tracking in Interpreting Studies: A Review of Four Decades of Empirical Studies. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Huang, Dan Feng, Fang Li & Hang Guo
2023. Chunking in simultaneous interpreting: the impact of task complexity and translation directionality on lexical bundles. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Iriskhanova, Olga K.
2023. Simultaneous interpreter in multimodal dimension: the role of gestures in moments of non-interpretation. Slovo.ru: Baltic accent 14:3 ► pp. 40 ff. DOI logo
Ishizuka, Hiroyuki
2024. Two levels of information packaging and cognitive operations during simultaneous interpreting: An analysis via additional demonstratives. Ampersand 12 ► pp. 100165 ff. DOI logo
Jiang, Xinlei & Yue Jiang
2020. Effect of dependency distance of source text on disfluencies in interpreting. Lingua 243 ► pp. 102873 ff. DOI logo
Lozano-Argüelles, Cristina & Nuria Sagarra
2021. Interpreting experience enhances the use of lexical stress and syllabic structure to predict L2 word endings. Applied Psycholinguistics 42:5 ► pp. 1135 ff. DOI logo
Lu, Xinchao
2018. Propositional information loss in English-to-Chinese simultaneous conference interpreting. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 64:5-6 ► pp. 792 ff. DOI logo
Lu, Xinchao & Xiuling Xu
2023. Testing aptitude for simultaneous interpreting: the predictive validity of recall and lexical-syntactic flexibility test. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 17:1 ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo
Ma, Xingcheng
2021. Coping with syntactic complexity in English–Chinese sight translation by translation and interpreting students.. Across Languages and Cultures 22:2 ► pp. 192 ff. DOI logo
Ma, Xingcheng & Dechao Li
2021. A cognitive investigation of ‘chunking’ and ‘reordering’ for coping with word-order asymmetry in English-to-Chinese sight translation. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 23:2 ► pp. 192 ff. DOI logo
Ma, Xingcheng, Dechao Li & Yu-Yin Hsu
2021. Exploring the impact of word order asymmetry on cognitive load during Chinese–English sight translation. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 33:1 ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
Meier, Julius, Bastian de Jong, Dorien Preusterink van Montfort, Anouk Verdonschot, Margot van Wermeskerken & Tamara van Gog
2023. Do social cues in instructional videos affect attention allocation, perceived cognitive load, and learning outcomes under different visual complexity conditions?. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 39:4 ► pp. 1339 ff. DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D. & Thomas A. Hanson
2019. Meta-analyses of simultaneous interpreting and working memory. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 21:2 ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
Moratto, Riccardo & Zhimiao Yang
2023. Probing the cognitive load of consecutive interpreters. Translation and Interpreting Studies DOI logo
Okoniewska, Alicja M.
2022. Interpreters’ roles in a changing environment. The Translator 28:2 ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Pietryga, Marcelina
2022. Perception of Directionality in Translation Among Students. Acta Neophilologica 1:XXIV ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Plevoets, Koen & Bart Defrancq
2016. The effect of informational load on disfluencies in interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies 11:2 ► pp. 202 ff. DOI logo
Rossetti, Alessandra
2020. Lore Vandevoorde, Joke Daems, and Bart Defrancq (eds.): New Empirical Perspectives on Translation and Interpreting. Machine Translation 34:2-3 ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo
Salaets, Heidi & Katalin Balogh
2023. Are interpreters and interpreting technology ready for the post-Covid era?. In Introducing New Hypertexts on Interpreting (Studies) [Benjamins Translation Library, 160], ► pp. 254 ff. DOI logo
Schirm, Johannes, Andrés Roberto Gómez-Vargas, Monica Perusquía-Hernández, Richard T. Skarbez, Naoya Isoyama, Hideaki Uchiyama & Kiyoshi Kiyokawa
2023. Identification of Language-Induced Mental Load from Eye Behaviors in Virtual Reality. Sensors 23:15 ► pp. 6667 ff. DOI logo
Seeber, Kilian G.
2017. Multimodal Processing in Simultaneous Interpreting. In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ► pp. 461 ff. DOI logo
Shao, Zhangminzi & Mingjiong Chai
2021. The effect of cognitive load on simultaneous interpreting performance: an empirical study at the local level. Perspectives 29:5 ► pp. 778 ff. DOI logo
Shen, Mingxia, Qianxi Lv & Junying Liang
2019. A corpus-driven analysis of uncertainty and uncertainty management in Chinese premier press conference interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies 14:1 ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Swenberg, Thorbjörn & Simon Carlgren
2021. On-Beat/Off-Beat. Projections 15:1 ► pp. 28 ff. DOI logo
Swenberg, Thorbjörn & Per Erik Eriksson
2018. Effects of Continuity or Discontinuity in Actual Film Editing. Empirical Studies of the Arts 36:2 ► pp. 222 ff. DOI logo
Wei, Wanni, Qing Xue, Xiaonan Yang, Hongjiang Du, Yahui Wang & Qinglong Tang
2023. Assessing the Cognitive Load Arising from In-Vehicle Infotainment Systems Using Pupil Diameter. In Cross-Cultural Design [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 14023], ► pp. 440 ff. DOI logo
Weng, Yu, Binghan Zheng & Yanping Dong
2022. Time pressure in translation. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 34:4 ► pp. 601 ff. DOI logo
Xiao, Yao, Kristian Tangsgaard Hvelplund & Chen-En Ho
2023. Wearable eye trackers. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 6:2 ► pp. 164 ff. DOI logo
Xu, Han & Kanglong Liu
2023. Syntactic simplification in interpreted English: Dependency distance and direction measures. Lingua 294 ► pp. 103607 ff. DOI logo
Zhao, Nan
2022. Use of Computer-Assisted Interpreting Tools in Conference Interpreting Training and Practice During COVID-19. In Translation and Interpreting in the Age of COVID-19 [Corpora and Intercultural Studies, 9], ► pp. 331 ff. DOI logo
Zhu, Xuelian & Vahid Aryadoust
2022. A Synthetic Review of Cognitive Load in Distance Interpreting: Toward an Explanatory Model. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Čegovnik, Tomaž, Kristina Stojmenova, Grega Jakus & Jaka Sodnik
2018. An analysis of the suitability of a low-cost eye tracker for assessing the cognitive load of drivers. Applied Ergonomics 68 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 april 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.