Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Measures and methods

Kilian G. Seeber
University of Geneva, Switserland

Abstract

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:
Table of contents

Among interpreting scholars, the list of those who consider simultaneous interpreting a cognitively tasking activity (e.g., Gile 1995; Hyönä et al. 1995; Massaro and Shlesinger 1997; Moser-Mercer 1997; De Groot 2000) seems to extend beyond that of those who consider such statements as nothing but “primitives or clichés” (Setton 2003, 37). Indeed, Setton argues that concurrent sub-tasks during simultaneous interpreting can be performed “comfortably if they are all sharing the same representation” (2001, 5). Over the years, the notion of cognitive load generated by the interpreting task, or the amount of cognitive effort necessary to perform it, has generated a substantial amount of interest and has been addressed by scholars from within and outside the paradigm who believe that such investigation might be very fruitful (de Groot 1997). The amount of empirical evidence gathered to [ p. 19 ]corroborate theories and claims about the amount of cognitive load generated by the task, however, would appear to be inversely proportional to the strength of the assertions put forward. As the following discussion will show, this imbalance may partially be explained by the difficulty of finding an appropriate paradigm within which to test hypotheses, coupled with a methodology capable of identifying, isolating and measuring the phenomenon as directly as possible. The purpose of this article is to provide an analysis of the potential and limitations of some of the most widely used methods for investigating cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting and the metrics (or measures) they employ, with a special focus on pupillometry.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Andreassi, John L.
2000Psychophysiology: 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 116: 790–798.Google Scholar
Barik, Henri C.
1969A 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.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia
2001 “Think-Aloud Protocols in Translation Research: Achievements, Limits, Future Prospects.” Target 13 (2): 214–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, John L.
1968 “Load and Pupillary Changes in Continuous Processing Tasks.” British Journal of Psychology 59 (3): 265–271.   CrossrefGoogle 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 89: 3179–3189.   CrossrefGoogle 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.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, Anders K., and Herbert A. Simon
1984Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel
1995Regards sur la recherche en interprétation de conférence. Lille: Presses universitaires de Lille.Google Scholar
[ p. 30 ]
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 23: 153–172.Google Scholar
2008 “Local Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting and its Implications for Empirical Research.” Forum 6 (2): 59–77. CrossrefGoogle 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.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gopher, Daniel, and Rolf Braune
1984 “On the Psychophysics of Workload: Why Bother with Subjective Measures?Human Factors 26: 519–532. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granholm, Eric, Robert F. Asarnow, Andrew J. Sarkin, and Karen L. Dykes
1996 “Pupillary Responses Index Cognitive Resource Limitations.” Psychophysiology 33: 457–461.   CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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 25: 16–26.   CrossrefGoogle 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.   CrossrefGoogle 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.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel
1973Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Jackson Beatty
1966 “Pupil Diameter and Load on Memory.” Science 154: 1583–1585.   CrossrefGoogle 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.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klingner, Jeff
2010Measuring 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 26: 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
[ p. 31 ]
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.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mazza, Cristina
2000Numbers 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 63: 81–97.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mital, Anil, and Majorkumar Govindaraju
1999 “Is It Possible to Have a Single Measure for all Work?International Journal of Industrial Engineering Theory 6: 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.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oléron, Pierre, and Hubert Nanpon
1965 “Recherches sur la traduction simultanée.” Journal de psychologie normale et pathologique 62: 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 35: 737–743. CrossrefGoogle 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.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peavler, Scott W.
1974 “Pupil Size, Information Overload, and Performance Differences.” Psychophysiology 11: 559–566.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petsche, Hellmuth, Susan C. Etlinger, and Oliver Filz
1993 “Brain Electrical Mechanisms of Bilingual Speech Management: An Initial Investigation.” Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 86: 385–394.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
1994Simultandolmetschen als komplexes Handeln. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Poock, Gary K.
1973 “Information Processing vs. Pupil Diameter.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 37: 1000–1002.   CrossrefGoogle 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.   CrossrefGoogle 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 294: 85–88.   CrossrefGoogle 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.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 32 ]
Schluroff, Michael
1982 “Pupil Responses to Grammatical Complexity of Sentences.” Brain and Language 17: 133–145.   CrossrefGoogle 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.   CrossrefGoogle 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.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seeber, Kilian G., and Dirk Kerzel
2012 “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Model Meets Data.” International Journal of Bilingualism 16 (2): 228–242.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin
2001 “Translation Studies and Cognitive Science: Do we Need each other?CTIS Occasional Papers 1: 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 12: 536–540.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tauchmanová, Jana
2011Daniel 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 41: 167–174.   CrossrefGoogle 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.   CrossrefGoogle 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