Working memory tasks in interpreting studies
A meta-analysis
Studies about working memory (WM) and interpreting have used a variety of methods and results are often
conflicting. There is therefore the need to analyse the cognitive tasks which have been used so far to assess their effectiveness
in detecting WM performance differences. This paper presents the findings of a meta-analysis that compares the results of
interpreters and interpreting students (study group) to the results of non-interpreters (control group) in four cognitive tasks
(reading span, n-back task, listening span and dual tasks). Interpreters show a significant WM advantage of medium size over
non-interpreters in tasks based on verbal stimuli, but not in tasks based on non-verbal stimuli. In addition, differences are
larger when there is a wider gap in interpreting expertise between the two groups.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Background and motivation
- 3.Methods
- 3.1Literature search and selection criteria
- 3.2Task classification
- 3.3Groups: Interpreters, interpreting students and non-interpreters
- 3.4Variables
- 3.5Statistical methods
- 4.Results
- 4.1Reading span task
- 4.1.1Reading span accuracy: Comparison between interpreters and non-interpreters
- 4.1.2Reading span accuracy: Comparison between interpreting students and non-interpreters
- 4.1.3Reading span accuracy: Comparison between interpreters and interpreting students
- 4.2N-back task
- 4.2.1N-back task accuracy: Comparison between interpreting students and non-interpreters
- 4.2.2N-back task RT: Comparison between interpreting students and non-interpreters
- 4.3Listening span task
- 4.3.1Listening span accuracy: Comparison between interpreters and non-interpreters
- 4.3.2Listening span accuracy: Comparison between interpreting students and non-interpreters
- 4.4Dual tasks
- 4.4.1Dual tasks accuracy: Comparison between interpreters and non-interpreters
- 4.4.2Dual tasks accuracy: Comparison between interpreting students and non-interpreters
- 4.5Analyses on all WM tasks
- 5.Discussion
- 6.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
-
References
References (62)
References
Assink, Mark, Claudia E. van der Put, Machteld Hoeve, Sanne L. A. de Vries, Geert Jan J. M. Stams, and Frans J. Oort. 2015. ‘Risk Factors for Persistent Delinquent Behavior among Juveniles: A Meta-Analytic Review’. Clinical Psychology Review
42
1 (December): 47–61.
Assink, Mark, and Carlijn J. M. Wibbelink. 2016. ‘Fitting Three-Level Meta-Analytic Models in R: A Step-by-Step Tutorial’. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology
12
(
3
): 154–74.
Babcock, Laura, Mariagrazia Capizzi, Sandra Arbula, and Antonino Vallesi. 2017. ‘Short-Term Memory Improvement After Simultaneous Interpretation Training’. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement
1
(
3
): 254–67.
Babcock, Laura, and Antonino Vallesi. 2017. ‘Are Simultaneous Interpreters Expert Bilinguals, Unique Bilinguals, or Both?’ Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
20
(
2
): 403–17.
Cai, Rendong, Yanping Dong, Nan Zhao, and Jiexuan Lin. 2015. ‘Factors Contributing to Individual Differences in the Development of Consecutive Interpreting Competence for Beginner Student Interpreters’. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (1): 104–20.
Cheung, Mike W.-L. 2014. ‘Modeling Dependent Effect Sizes with Three-Level Meta-Analyses: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach’. Psychological Methods 19 (2): 211–29.
Chmiel, Agnieszka. 2018. ‘In Search of the Working Memory Advantage in Conference Interpreting – Training, Experience and Task Effects’. The International Journal of Bilingualism; London
22
(
3
): 371–84.
Christoffels, Ingrid K., Annette M. B. de Groot, and Judith F. Kroll. 2006. ‘Memory and Language Skills in Simultaneous Interpreters: The Role of Expertise and Language Proficiency’. Journal of Memory and Language
54
(
3
): 324–45.
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Version 6.2. 2021. 6.2. [URL]
Cohen, Jacob. 1977. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Cooper, Harris, Larry V. Hedges, and Jeffrey C. Valentine. 2009. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. Russell Sage Foundation.
Desmet, Bart, Mieke Vandierendonck, and Bart Defrancq. 2018. ‘Simultaneous Interpretation of Numbers and the Impact of Technological Support’. In Interpreting and Technology, edited by Claudio Fantinuoli, 13–27. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, and Judy A. Siguaw. 2000. ‘Assessment of Model Fit’. In Introducing LISREL: A Guide for the Uninitiated, 82–100. London, UNITED KINGDOM: SAGE Publications. [URL].
Dong, Yanping, and Rendong Cai. 2015. ‘Working Memory in Interpreting: A Commentary on Theoretical Models’. In Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition and Processing, edited by Zhisheng (Edward) Wen, Borges Mailce Mota, and Arthur McNeill, 63–84. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dong, Yanping, and Yuhua Liu. 2016. ‘Classes in Translating and Interpreting Produce Differential Gains in Switching and Updating’. Frontiers in Psychology 71 (August).
Dong, Yanping, Yuhua Liu, and Rendong Cai. 2018. ‘How Does Consecutive Interpreting Training Influence Working Memory: A Longitudinal Study of Potential Links Between the Two’. Frontiers in Psychology
9
1: 875.
Duval, Sue, and Richard Tweedie. 2000. ‘Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel-Plot-Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis’. Biometrics 56 (2): 455–63.
Franco Aixelá, Javier. 2001. ‘BITRA (Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation). Open-Access Database.’ [URL]
Gile, Daniel. 2021. ‘CIRIN Bulletin’. 2021. [URL]
Grundy, John G., and Kalinka Timmer. 2017. ‘Bilingualism and Working Memory Capacity: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis’. Second Language Research
33
(
3
): 325–40.
Harrer, Mathias, Pim Cuijpers, Toshi A. Furukawa, and David D. Ebert. 2021. Doing Meta-Analysis with R: A Hands-On Guide. CRC Press.
Hedges, Larry V. 1981. ‘Distribution Theory for Glass’s Estimator of Effect Size and Related Estimators’. Journal of Educational Statistics
6
(
2
): 107–28.
Hunter, John E., and Frank L. Schmidt. 1990. Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hunter, John E., and Frank L. Schmidt. 2000. ‘Fixed Effects vs. Random Effects Meta-Analysis Models: Implications for Cumulative Research Knowledge’. International Journal of Selection and Assessment
8
(
4
): 275–92.
Injoque-Ricle, Irene, Juan Pablo Barreyro, Jesica Formoso, and Virginia I. Jaichenco. 2015. ‘Expertise, Working Memory and Articulatory Suppression Effect: Their Relation with Simultaneous Interpreting Performance’. Advances in Cognitive Psychology
11
(
2
): 56–63.
Jin, Ya-shyuan. 2010. ‘Is Working Memory Working in Consecutive Interpreting?’ The University of Edinburgh. [URL]
Kelley, Ken, and Kristopher J. Preacher. 2012. ‘On Effect Size’. Psychological Methods
17
(
2
): 137–152.
Lambert, Sylvie. 2004. ‘Shared Attention during Sight Translation, Sight Interpretation and Simultaneous Interpretation’. Meta : Journal Des Traducteurs / Meta: Translators’ Journal 49 (2): 294–306.
Logie, Robert, Valérie Camos, and Nelson Cowan, eds. 2021. Working Memory – State of the Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McKenzie, Joanne E., and Sue E. Brennan. 2019. ‘Synthesizing and Presenting Findings Using Other Methods’. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 321–47. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Morales, Julia, Francisca Padilla, Carlos J. Gómez-Ariza, and M. Teresa Bajo. 2015. ‘Simultaneous Interpretation Selectively Influences Working Memory and Attentional Networks’. Acta Psychologica
155
1 (February): 82–91.
Nour, Soudabeh, Esli Struys, and Helene Stengers. 2020a. ‘Adaptive Control in Interpreters: Assessing the Impact of Training and Experience on Working Memory’. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
23
(
4
): 772–79.
Page, Matthew J., Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, et al. 2021. ‘The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews’. BMJ 3721 (March): n71.
Park, Denise C., Gary Lautenschlager, Trey Hedden, Natalie S. Davidson, Anderson D. Smith, and Pamela K. Smith. 2002. ‘Models of Visuospatial and Verbal Memory across the Adult Life Span’. Psychology and Aging
17
(
2
): 299–320.
Pollet, Thomas. 2021. ‘Meta-Analysis Course (in R)’. 2021. [URL]
Raftery, Adrian E. 1995. ‘Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research’. Sociological Methodology 251 (January): 111–63.
Rothstein, Hannah R., Alexander J. Sutton, and Michael Borenstein. 2005. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis : Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. john Wiley & Sons. [URL].
RStudio, Team. 2021. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Boston: PBC. https://rstudio.com/.
Schmidt, Frank L., In-Sue Oh, and Theodore L. Hayes. 2009. ‘Fixed- versus Random-Effects Models in Meta-Analysis: Model Properties and an Empirical Comparison of Differences in Results’. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology 62 (1): 97–128.
Signorelli, Teresa M., Henk J. Haarmann, and Loraine K. Obler. 2011. ‘Working Memory in Simultaneous Interpreters: Effects of Task and Age’. International Journal of Bilingualism
16
(
2
): 198–212.
Stavrakaki, Stavroula, Kalliopi Megari, Mary H. Kosmidis, Maria Apostolidou, and Eleni Takou. 2012. ‘Working Memory and Verbal Fluency in Simultaneous Interpreters’. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology
34
(
6
): 624–33.
Timarová, Šárka, Ivana Čeňková, Reine Meylaerts, Erik Hertog, Arnaud Szmalec, and Wouter Duyck. 2015. ‘Simultaneous Interpreting and Working Memory Capacity’. In Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting, edited by Aline Ferreira and John W. Schwieter, 1151:101–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Tzou, Yeh-Zu, Zohreh R. Eslami, Hsin-Chin Chen, and Jyotsna Vaid. 2012. ‘Effect of Language Proficiency and Degree of Formal Training in Simultaneous Interpreting on Working Memory and Interpreting Performance: Evidence from Mandarin–English Speakers’. International Journal of Bilingualism
16
(
2
): 213–27.
Ünlü, Elena Antonova, and Çiğdem Sağın Şimşek. 2018. ‘Testing the Impact of Formal Interpreting Training on Working Memory Capacity: Evidence from Turkish–English Students–Interpreters’. Lingua 2091 (July): 78–88.
Van der Linden, Lize, Eowyn Van de Putte, Evy Woumans, Wouter Duyck, and Arnaud Szmalec. 2018. ‘Does Extreme Language Control Training Improve Cognitive Control? A Comparison of Professional Interpreters, L2 Teachers and Monolinguals’. Frontiers in Psychology 91.
Viechtbauer, Wolfgang. 2005. ‘Bias and Efficiency of Meta-Analytic Variance Estimators in the Random-Effects Model’. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 30 (3): 261–93.
Viechtbauer, Wolfgang. 2010. ‘Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the Metafor Package’. Journal of Statistical Software 361 (August): 1–48.
Wen, Hao, and Yanping Dong. 2019. ‘How Does Interpreting Experience Enhance Working Memory and Short-Term Memory: A Meta-Analysis’. Journal of Cognitive Psychology
31
(
8
): 769–84.
Yudes, Carolina, Pedro Macizo, and Teresa Bajo. 2011. ‘The Influence of Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting on Non-Verbal Executive Processes’. Frontiers in Psychology 21.
Yudes, Carolina, Pedro Macizo, Luis Morales, and M. Teresa Bajo. 2013. ‘Comprehension and Error Monitoring in Simultaneous Interpreters’. Applied Psycholinguistics 34 (5): 1039–57.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Zhong, Fei & Yanping Dong
2024.
ERP neural correlates of the interpreter advantage in coordination for interpreting students.
Applied Psycholinguistics 45:5
► pp. 897 ff.
Zou, Deyan & Jiahao Guo
2024.
Parallel translation process in consecutive interpreting: Differences between beginning and advanced interpreting students.
Acta Psychologica 248
► pp. 104358 ff.
Elmer, Stefan & Nathalie Giroud
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 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.