Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation, Cognition & Behavior
Vol. 5:2 (2022) ► pp.250–274
Thematic section

Testing the impact of remote interpreting settings on interpreter experience and performance

Methodological challenges inside the virtual booth

ORCID logo | Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
ORCID logo | Università di BolognaForlì
This paper presents methodological challenges in a study focusing on the impact of remote interpreting settings on interpreter experience and performance. In recent years, the practice of simultaneous interpreting has undergone a robust development with the quick uptake of remote interpreting technologies due to the global pandemic. In order to investigate remote interpreting, we created the Inside the Virtual Booth project encompassing a survey and an experimental study. We report on selected results of the survey that directly inform the experimental study design. We focus on challenges related to the compromise between experimental control and ecological validity, creation of materials and selection of dependent variables, including eyetracking measures that cannot be directly applied from reading studies to a study involving multimodal content typical for remote interpreting assignments. The paper may serve as a source of methodological guidance to scholars entering the field of experimental translation and interpreting studies.
Keywords: remote simultaneous interpreting, methodology, eyetracking, interpreting studies, virtual booth
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The ‘Inside the virtual booth’ project
  • 3.Stage one: Survey
    • 3.1Design and piloting
    • 3.2Demographics
    • 3.3Expertise
    • 3.4Selected results: Insights for the experimental stage
  • 4.Stage two: Experimental study
    • 4.1Study design
      • 4.1.1Participants
      • 4.1.2Materials: Challenges when matching experimental stimuli
    • 4.2Dependent variables
      • 4.2.1Eyetracking measures as an index of processing in RSI
      • 4.2.2Accuracy as an index of performance in RSI
      • 4.2.3Questionnaire data as indices of subjective experience in RSI
  • 5.Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 14 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00068.chm
References (77)
References
Angelelli, Claudia, and Brian James Baer. 2016. Researching Translation and Interpreting. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena. 2006. ‘Strategies of Simultaneous Interpreting and Directionality.’ Interpreting 8 (2): 149–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradley, James V. 1958. ‘Complete Counterbalancing of Immediate Sequential Effects in a Latin Square Design.’ Journal of the American Statistical Association 53 (282): 525–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, Sabine, Elena Davitti and Catherine Slater. 2020. ‘‘It’s like being in bubbles’: affordances and challenges of virtual learning environments for collaborative learning in interpreter education’. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14(5): 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chmiel, Agnieszka. 2008. ‘Boothmates Forever?— On Teamwork in a Simultaneous Interpreting Booth.’ Across Languages and Cultures 9 (2): 261–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021b. ‘Eye-Tracking Studies in Conference Interpreting.’ In The Routledge Handbook of Conference Interpreting, edited by Michaela Albl-Mikasa and Elisabet Tiselius, 1st ed., 457–70. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chmiel, Agnieszka, Przemysław Janikowski, and Agnieszka Lijewska. 2020. ‘Multimodal Processing in Simultaneous Interpreting with Text: Interpreters Focus More on the Visual than the Auditory Modality.’ Target 32(1): 37–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chmiel, Agnieszka, and Agnieszka Lijewska. 2019. ‘Syntactic Processing in Sight Translation by Professional and Trainee Interpreters.’ Target 31 (3): 378–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chmiel, Agnieszka, and Iwona Mazur. 2013. ‘Eye Tracking Sight Translation Performed by Trainee Interpreters.’ In Tracks and Treks in Translation Studies, edited by Catherine Way, Sonia Vandepitte, Reine Meylaerts, and Magdalena Bartłomiejczyk, 189–205. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collard, Camille and Marta Buján Navarro. 2021. ESIT research project on remote simultaneous interpreting: first overview of results. Accessed 12 September 2022. [URL]
Cuetos, Fernando, María Glez-Nosti, Analía Barbón, and Marc Brysbaert. 2011. ‘SUBTLEX-ESP: Spanish Word Frequencies Based on Film Subtitles.’ Psicológica 321: 133–143.Google Scholar
Díaz-Galaz, Stephanie, Presentación Padilla, and María Teresa Bajo. 2015. ‘The Role of Advance Preparation in Simultaneous Interpreting.’ Interpreting 17 (1): 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doherty, Stephen, and Jan-Louis Kruger. 2018. ‘The Development of Eye Tracking in Empirical Research on Subtitling and Captioning.’ In Seeing into Screens: Eye Tracking and the Moving Image, edited by Tessa Dwyer, Claire Perkins, Sean Redmond, and Jodi Sita, 46–64. London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara, and Inge Gorm Hansen. 2009. ‘Exploring Translation and Interpreting Hybrids. The Case of Sight Translation.’ Meta 54 (3): 588–604. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duchowski, Andrew T., Krzysztof Krejtz, Izabela Krejtz, Cezary Biele, Anna Niedzielska, Peter Kiefer, Martin Raubal, and Ioannis Giannopoulos. 2018. ‘The Index of Pupillary Activity: Measuring Cognitive Load Vis-à-Vis Task Difficulty with Pupil Oscillation.’ In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–13. Montreal: ACM. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Environmental Implementation Review. Accessed 12 September 2022. [URL]
Fantinuoli, Claudio. 2019. ‘The Technological Turn in Interpreting: The Challenges That Lie Ahead.’ In Proceedings of the Conference Übersetzen und Dolmetschen 4.0.—Neue Wege im Digitalen Zeitalter, edited by Wolfram Baur and Felix Mayer, 334–354. Berlin: BDÜ Fachverlag.Google Scholar
Fantinuoli, Claudio, Giulia Marchesini, David Landan, and Lukas Horak. 2022. ’KUDO Interpreter Assist: Automated Real-Time Support for Remote Interpretation’. In Proceedings of the Translating and the Computer 43 Conference, 68–77. Geneva: Editions Tradulex.Google Scholar
Gieshoff, Anne Catherine. 2018. The Impact of Audio-Visual Speech Input on Work-Load in Simultaneous Interpreting. Doctoral dissertation, Universität Mainz.
Gile, Daniel. 2009. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
GT Booth. Accessed 12 September 2022. [URL]
Gunning, Robert. 1969. ‘The Fog Index after Twenty Years.’ Journal of Business Communication, 6 (2): 3–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Sandra, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Natalie Martschuk, and Stephen Doherty. 2022. ‘The Effects of Mode on Interpreting Performance in a Simulated Police Interview.’ Translation and Interpreting Studies 17 (2): 264–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Chih-Chieh. 2011. Tracking Eye Movements in Sight Translation – the Comprehension Process in Interpreting. Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Halverson, Sandra L., and Ricardo Muñoz Martín. 2021. ‘The Times, They Are a-Changin’: Multilingual Mediated Communication and Cognition.’ In Multilingual Mediated Communication and Cognition, edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín and Sandra L. Alverson, 1–17. London: Routledge.Google 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 A. Hancock and Najmedin Meshkati, North-Holland, 139–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoberg, Felix. 2022. Informationsintegration in Mehrsprachigen Textchats. Der Skype Translator im Sprachenpaar Katalanisch-Deutsch. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, and Kristian Jensen. 2008. ‘Eye Movement Behaviour across Four Different Types of Reading Task.’ In Looking at Eyes – Eye Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing, edited by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, and Inger Mees, 103–124. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 2017. ‘Translation Process Research.’ In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited by Aline Ferreira and John W. Schwieter, 19–49. Hoboken: Wiley and Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Roderick. 2002. Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta, Ilmari Ivaska, and Adriano Ferraresi. 2021. ‘‘Lost’ in Interpreting and ‘Found’ in Translation: Using an Intermodal, Multidirectional Parallel Corpus to Investigate the Rendition of Numbers.’ Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 29 (4): 469–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korpal, Paweł. 2017. Linguistic and psychological indicators of stress in simultaneous interpreting. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.Google Scholar
Korpal, Paweł, and Katarzyna Stachowiak-Szymczak. 2018. ‘The Whole Picture: Processing of Numbers and Their Context in Simultaneous Interpreting.’ Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 54 (3): 335–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. ‘Combined Problem Triggers in Simultaneous Interpreting.’ Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laugwitz, Bettina, Theo Held, and Martin Schrepp. 2008. ‘Construction and Evaluation of a User Experience Questionnaire’. In HCI and Usability for Education and Work, edited by Andreas Holzinger, 52981:63–76. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Limesurvey GmbH (2003). / LimeSurvey: An Open Source survey tool /LimeSurvey GmbH, Hamburg, Germany. [URL]. Accessed 28 September 2022.
Lin, Yumeng, Qianxi Lv, and Junying Liang. 2018. ‘Predicting Fluency With Language Proficiency, Working Memory, and Directionality in Simultaneous Interpreting.’ Frontiers in Psychology 91: 1543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Minhua, Diane L. Schallert, and Patrick J. Carroll. 2004. ‘Working Memory and Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting.’ Interpreting 6 (1): 19–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Yanmei, Binghan Zheng, and Hao Zhou. 2019. “Measuring the Difficulty of Text Translation: The Combination of Text-Focused and Translator-Oriented Approaches”. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 31 (1): 125–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson. 2017. Quantitative Research Methods in Translation and Interpreting Studies. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2018. ‘Interpreter Traits and the Relationship with Technology and Visibility.’ Translation and Interpreting Studies. 13 (3), 366–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. ‘Considerations of Ecological Validity in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies.’ Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D. 2019. ‘Computer-Assisted Interpreting Technologies and Interpreter Cognition: A Product and Process-Oriented Perspective’. Revista Tradumàtica. Tecnologies de la Traducció, 171, 33–44. < DOI logo>Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 2005. ‘The crucial role of presence’. Bulletin VALS-ASLA 811: 73–97.Google Scholar
Mouzourakis, Panayotis. 2006. ‘Remote Interpreting: A Technical Perspective on Recent Experiments’. Interpreting 8 (1): 45–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naeeri, Salem, Saptarshi Mandal, and Ziho Kang. 2019. ‘Analyzing Pilots’ Fatigue for Prolonged Flight Missions: Multimodal Analysis Approach Using Vigilance Test and Eye Tracking.’ In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 63 (1): 111–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
NASA-TLX. 1986. NASA-TLX Paper and Pencil Package. [URL]. Accessed 28 September 2022.
Plevoets, Koen, and Bart Defrancq. 2016. ‘The Effect of Informational Load on Disfluencies in Interpreting: A Corpus-Based Regression Analysis.’ Translation and Interpreting Studies 11 (2): 202–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prandi, Bianca. 2022. Computer-Assisted Simultaneous Interpreting. A Cognitive-Experimental Study on Terminology. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Ratchford, Mark and Michelle Barnhart. 2012. ‘Development and Validation of the Technology Adoption Propensity (TAP) Index.’ Journal of Business Research 65 (8): 1209–1215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rojo López, Ana María, Paula Cifuentes Férez and Laura Espín López. 2021a. ‘The influence of time pressure on translation trainees’ performance: Testing the relationship between self-esteem, salivary cortisol and subjective stress response’. PLoS ONE 16 (9): e0257727. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rojo López, Ana María, Ana Isabel Foulquié-Rubio, Laura Espín López and Francisco Martínez Sánchez. 2021b. ‘Analysis of speech rhythm and heart rate as indicators of stress on student interpreters’. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 29 (4): 591–607. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roziner, Ilan, and Miriam Shlesinger. 2010. ‘Much Ado about Something Remote: Stress and Performance in Remote Interpreting’. Interpreting 12 (2): 214–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rozkrut, Paulina. 2022. Factors Influencing the Processing of Numbers in Polish-English and English-Polish Simultaneous Interpreting. Master’s thesis, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań.
Saeed, Muhammad Ahmed, Eloy Rodríguez González, Tomasz Korybski, Elena Davitti, and Sabine Braun. 2022. ‘Connected yet Distant: An Experimental Study into the Visual Needs of the Interpreter in Remote Simultaneous Interpreting’. In Human-Computer Interaction. User Experience and Behavior, edited by Masaaki Kurosu, 214–232. Cham: Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saldanha, Gabriela, and Sharon O’Brien. 2014. Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schrepp, Martin. 2019. User Experience Questionnaire Handbook. [URL]. Accessed 28 September 2022.
Seeber, Kilian G. 2012. ‘Multimodal Input in Simultaneous Interpreting. An Eye-Tracking Experiment.’ In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference TRANSLATA, Translation & Interpreting Research: Yesterday – Today – Tomorrow. Innsbruck, Austria, edited by Lew N. Zybatov, Alena Petrova, and Michael Ustaszewski, 341–47. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2017. ‘Interpreting at the European Institutions: Faster, Higher, Stronger.’ CLINA 3 (2): 73–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, Kilian G., Laura Keller, Rhona Amos, and Sophie Hengl. 2019. ‘Expectations vs. Experience: Attitudes towards Video Remote Conference Interpreting’. Interpreting, 21 (2): 270–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, Kilian G., Laura Keller, and Alexis Hervais-Adelman. 2020. ‘When the Ear Leads the Eye – the Use of Text during Simultaneous Interpretation.’ Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 35 (10): 1480–1494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, Kilian G., and Dirk Kerzel. 2011. ‘Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Model Meets Data.’ International Journal of Bilingualism 16 (2): 228–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin, and Andrew Dawrant. 2016. Conference Interpreting – A Trainer’s Guide. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seubert, Sabine. 2019. Visuelle Informationen beim Simultandolmetschen. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Shao, Zhangminzi, and Mingjiong Chai. 2020. ‘The Effect of Cognitive Load on Simultaneous Interpreting Performance: An Empirical Study at the Local Level.’ Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 29 (5): 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M., Isabel Lacruz, and Erik Angelone. 2010. ‘Cognitive Effort, Syntactic Disruption, and Visual Interference in a Sight Translation Task.’ In Translation and Cognition, edited by Gregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone, 63–84. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spielberger, Charles, Richard Gorsuch, Robert E. Lushene, Peter R. Vagg and Gerard A. Jacobs. 1983. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Stachowiak, Katarzyna. 2016. Eye Movements and Gestures as Correlates of Language Processing in Consecutive and Simultaneous Interpreting. Department of Translation Studies. Doctoral dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań.
Su, Wenchao, and Defeng Li. 2019. ‘Identifying Translation Problems in English-Chinese Sight Translation.’ Translation and Interpreting Studies 14 (1): 110–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sun, Sanjun and Gregory M. Shreve. 2014. ‘Measuring translation difficulty: an empirical study’. Target 26 (1): 98–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szarkowska, Agnieszka, and Olivia Gerber-Morón. 2019. ‘Two or Three Lines: A Mixed-Methods Study on Subtitle Processing and Preferences.’ Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 27 (1): 144–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiselius, Elisabet. 2009. ‘Revisiting Carroll’s Scales.’ In Testing and Assessment in Translation and Interpreting Studies, edited by Claudia V. Angelelli and Holly E. Jacobson, XIV1: 95–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiselius, Elisabet, and Kayle Sneed. 2020. ‘Gaze and Eye Movement in Dialogue Interpreting: An Eye-Tracking Study.’ Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23 (4): 780–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Heuven, Walter J. B., Pawel Mandera, Emmanuel Keuleers, and Marc Brysbaert. 2014. ‘SUBTLEX-UK: A New and Improved Word Frequency Database for British English.’ The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 67 (6): 1176–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, Chengsong, Yimeng Wang and Na Fan. 2022. “Are parallel translation tasks parallel in difficulty? an eye-tracking study”. Perspectives 30 (4): 711–726. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Arbona, Eléonore, Kilian G. Seeber & Marianne Gullberg
2024. The role of semantically related gestures in the language comprehension of simultaneous interpreters in noise. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 39:5 ► pp. 584 ff. DOI logo
Cheung, Andrew K. F.
2024. Cognitive load in remote simultaneous interpreting: place name translation in two Mandarin variants. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 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.