1887
Volume 21, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article adopts a meta-analytic research framework to examine the strength of the relationship between working memory and simultaneous interpreting. This quantitative analysis utilizes a random effects model to combine multiple studies in an examination of differences between professional interpreters and various comparison groups as well as the relationship between working memory capacity and interpreter performance. Moderating and control variables are discussed, and a classification scheme for work on these topics is proposed. Two moderating variables are examined by testing the difference between working memory tests relying on auditory and visual stimuli as well as storage tasks (short-term memory) and processing tasks (working memory). Published studies were collected from several field-specific databases by querying and as key terms, and then supplemented by reviewing references, searching Google Scholar, and reviewing the work of scholars known to work in the area. Results are indicative of differences between professional and comparison groups, with professional interpreters exhibiting greater working memory capacity. Additionally, an overall positive correlation was observed between working memory capacity and measures of the quality of simultaneous interpreting.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00026.mel
2019-11-11
2019-12-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Babcock, L. & Vallesi, A.
    (2017) Are simultaneous interpreters expert bilinguals, unique bilinguals, or both?Bilingualism: Language and Cognition20 (2), 403–417. 10.1017/S1366728915000735
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000735 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bajo, M. T., Padilla, F. & Padilla, P.
    (2000) Comprehension processing in simultaneous interpreting. InY. Gambier, N. G. San Salvador & A. Chesterman (Eds.), Translation in context: Selected contributions from the EST congress, Granada, 1998. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 127–142. 10.1075/btl.39.15baj
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.39.15baj [Google Scholar]
  3. Borenstein, M., Higgins, J. P. T., Hedges, L. V. & Rothstein, H. R.
    (2017) Basics of meta-analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Research Synthesis Methods8 (1), 5–18. 10.1002/jrsm.1230
    https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1230 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chincotta, D. & Underwood, G.
    (1998) Simultaneous interpreters and the effect of concurrent articulation on immediate memory: A bilingual digit span study. Interpreting3 (1), 1–20. 10.1075/intp.3.1.01chi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.3.1.01chi [Google Scholar]
  5. Christoffels, I. K.
    (2006) Listening while talking: The retention of prose under articulatory suppression in relation to simultaneous interpreting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology18 (2), 206–220. 10.1080/09541440500162073
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440500162073 [Google Scholar]
  6. Christoffels, I. K. & de Groot, A. M. B.
    (2009) Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive perspective. InJ. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 454–479.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Christoffels, I. K., de Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F.
    (2006) Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency. Journal of Memory and Language54 (3), 324–345. 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  8. Christoffels, I. K., de Groot, A. M. B. & Waldorp, L. J.
    (2003) Basic skills in a complex task: A graphical model relating lexical retrieval, working memory, and simultaneous interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition6 (3), 201–211. 10.1017/S1366728903001135
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728903001135 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cochran, W. G.
    (1954) The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics10 (1), 101–129. 10.2307/3001666
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3001666 [Google Scholar]
  10. Colomer, S. E.
    (2010) Dual role interpreters: Spanish teachers in new Latino communities. Hispania93 (3), 490–503.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Conway, A. R., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O. & Engle, R. W.
    (2005) Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review12 (5), 769–786. 10.3758/BF03196772
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772 [Google Scholar]
  12. Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P. A.
    (1980) Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior19 (4), 450–466. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(80)90312‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6 [Google Scholar]
  13. Daneman, M. & Merikle, P. M.
    (1996) Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review3 (4), 422–433. 10.3758/BF03214546
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214546 [Google Scholar]
  14. Darò, V.
    (1989) The role of memory and attention in simultaneous interpretation: A neurolinguistics approach. The Interpreters’ Newsletter2, 50–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Diriker, E.
    (2015) Simultaneous interpreting. InF. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. New York: Routledge, 382–385.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dong, Y. & Cai, R.
    (2015) Working memory and interpreting: A commentary on theoretical models. InZ. Wen, M. B. Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing. Toronto: Multilingual Matters, 63–81. 10.21832/9781783093595‑008
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783093595-008 [Google Scholar]
  17. Duis, S. S., Dean, R. S. & Derks, P.
    (1994) The modality effect: A result of methodology?International Journal of Neuroscience78 (1–2), 1–7. 10.3109/00207459408986040
    https://doi.org/10.3109/00207459408986040 [Google Scholar]
  18. Duval, S. J. & Tweedie, R. L.
    (2000a) Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics56 (2), 455–463. 10.1111/j.0006‑341X.2000.00455.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x [Google Scholar]
  19. (2000b) A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association95 (449), 89–98.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E. & Conway, A. R.
    (1999) Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: a latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General128 (3), 309–331. 10.1037/0096‑3445.128.3.309
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309 [Google Scholar]
  21. García, A.
    (2014) The interpreter advantage hypothesis: Preliminary data patterns and empirically motivated questions. Translation and Interpreting Studies9 (2), 219–238. 10.1075/tis.9.2.04gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.9.2.04gar [Google Scholar]
  22. Gile, D.
    (2015) The contributions of cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics to conference interpreting: A critical analysis. InA. Ferreira & J. W. Schwieter (Eds.), Psycholinguistic and cognitive inquiries into translation and interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 41–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2016) Experimental research. InC. Angelelli & B. J. Baer (Eds.), Researching translation and interpreting. New York: Routledge, 220–228.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Glass, G.
    (1976) Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher5 (10), 3–8. 10.3102/0013189X005010003
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gordon, M. & Lumley, T.
    (2017) forestplot: Advanced forest plot using ‘grid’ graphics. R package version 1.7.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gregoire, J. & van der Linden, M.
    (1997) Effect of age on forward and backward digit spans. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition4 (2), 140–149. 10.1080/13825589708256642
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13825589708256642 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hardy, R. J., & Thompson, S. G.
    (1998) Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine17 (8), 841–856. 10.1002/(SICI)1097‑0258(19980430)17:8<841::AID‑SIM781>3.0.CO;2‑D
    https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980430)17:8<841::AID-SIM781>3.0.CO;2-D [Google Scholar]
  28. Hedges, L. V.
    (1981) Distribution theory for Glass’ estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics6 (2), 107–128. 10.3102/10769986006002107
    https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986006002107 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hedges, L. V. & Olkin, I.
    (1980) Vote counting methods in research synthesis. Psychological Bulletin88 (2), 359–369. 10.1037/0033‑2909.88.2.359
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.2.359 [Google Scholar]
  30. (1985) Statistical methods for meta-analysis. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hedges, L. V. & Pigott, T. D.
    (2001) The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods6 (3), 203–217. 10.1037/1082‑989X.6.3.203
    https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.6.3.203 [Google Scholar]
  32. Higgins, J. P. & Thompson, S. G.
    (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine21, 1539–1558. 10.1002/sim.1186
    https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hiltunen, S., Pääkkönen, R., Vik, G.-V. & Krause, C. M.
    (2016) On interpreters’ working memory and executive control. International Journal of Bilingualism20 (3), 297–314. 10.1177/1367006914554406
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006914554406 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hunter, J. E. & Schmidt, F. L.
    (1990) Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Injoque-Ricle, I., Barreyro, J. P., Formoso, J. & Jaichenco, V.
    (2015) Expertise, working memory and articulatory suppression effect: Their relation with simultaneous interpreting performance. Advances in Cognitive Psychology11 (2), 56–63. 10.5709/acp‑0171‑1
    https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0171-1 [Google Scholar]
  36. Jääskeläinen, R.
    (2010) Are all professionals experts? Definitions of expertise and reinterpretation of research evidence in process studies. InE. Angelone & G. Shreve (Eds.), Translation and cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 213–227. 10.1075/ata.xv.12jaa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.12jaa [Google Scholar]
  37. Köpke, B. & Nespoulous, J.-L.
    (2006) Working memory performance in expert and novice interpreters. Interpreting8 (1), 1–23. 10.1075/intp.8.1.02kop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.1.02kop [Google Scholar]
  38. Köpke, B. & Signorelli, T. M.
    (2012) Methodological aspects of working memory assessment in simultaneous interpreters. International Journal of Bilingualism16 (2), 183–197. 10.1177/1367006911402981
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911402981 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lakens, D.
    (2013) Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology4, 863. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lee, M.
    (2011) Working memory performance of expert and novice interpreters. Journal of Universal Language12 (1), 95–110. 10.22425/jul.2011.12.1.95
    https://doi.org/10.22425/jul.2011.12.1.95 [Google Scholar]
  41. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J. & Moher, D.
    (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ339: b2700. 10.1136/bmj.b2700
    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700 [Google Scholar]
  42. Liu, M., Schallert, D. L. & Carroll, P. J.
    (2004) Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting6 (1), 19–42. 10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu [Google Scholar]
  43. Macnamara, B. N. & Conway, A. R. A.
    (2014) Novel evidence in support of the bilingual advantage: Influences of task demands and experience on cognitive control and working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review21 (2), 520–525. 10.3758/s13423‑013‑0524‑y
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0524-y [Google Scholar]
  44. (2016) Working memory capacity as a predictor of simultaneous language interpreting performance. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition5 (4), 434–444. 10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  45. Macnamara, B. N., Moore, A. B., Kegl, J. A. & Conway, A. R. A.
    (2011) Domain-general cognitive abilities and simultaneous interpreting skill. Interpreting13 (1), 121–142. 10.1075/intp.13.1.08mac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.1.08mac [Google Scholar]
  46. Melan, C., Galy, E. & Cariou, M.
    (2007) Mnemonic processing in air traffic controllers (ATCs): Effects of task parameters and work organization. International Journal of Aviation Psychology17 (4), 391–490. 10.1080/10508410701527886
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10508410701527886 [Google Scholar]
  47. Melby-Lervåg, M. & Hulme, C.
    (2013) Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology49 (2), 270–291. 10.1037/a0028228
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028228 [Google Scholar]
  48. Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S. & Hulme, C.
    (2016) Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of “far transfer.” Perspectives on Psychological Science11 (4), 512–534. 10.1177/1745691616635612
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616635612 [Google Scholar]
  49. Mellinger, C. D. & Hanson, T. A.
    (2017) Quantitative research methods in translation and interpreting studies. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. & The PRISMA Group
    (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine6 (7), 1–6. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [Google Scholar]
  51. Morales, J., Padilla, F., Gómez-Ariza, C. J. & Bajo, M. T.
    (2015) Simultaneous interpretation selectively influences working memory and attentional networks. Acta Psychologica155, 82–91. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  52. Moser-Mercer, B., Frauenfelder, U. H., Casado, B. & Künzli, A.
    (2000) Searching to define expertise in interpreting. InK. Hyltenstam & B. Englund Dimitrova (Eds.), Language processing and simultaneous interpreting: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 107–131. 10.1075/btl.40.09mos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.40.09mos [Google Scholar]
  53. Padilla, P., Bajo, M. T., Cañas, J. J. & Padilla, F.
    (1995) Cognitive processes of memory in simultaneous interpretation. InJ. Tommola (Ed.), Topics in interpreting research. Turku, Finland: University of Turku, 61–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Rosenberg, M. S.
    (2005) The file-drawer problem revisited: A general weighted method for calculating fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis. Evolution59 (2), 464–468. 10.1111/j.0014‑3820.2005.tb01004.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01004.x [Google Scholar]
  56. Rosenthal, R.
    (1979) The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin86 (3), 638–641. 10.1037/0033‑2909.86.3.638
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 [Google Scholar]
  57. Rothe-Neves, R.
    (2003) The influence of working memory features on some formal aspects of translation performance. InF. Alves (Ed.), Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process-oriented research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 97–199. 10.1075/btl.45.09rot
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.45.09rot [Google Scholar]
  58. Setton, R. & Dawrant, A.
    (2016) Conference interpreting – A complete course and trainer’s guide. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.120
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.120 [Google Scholar]
  59. Seeber, K. G.
    (2011) Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories – new models. Interpreting13 (2), 176–204. 10.1075/intp.13.2.02see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.2.02see [Google Scholar]
  60. (2013) Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Measures and methods. Target25 (1), 18–32. 10.1075/target.25.1.03see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.03see [Google Scholar]
  61. Seleskovitch, D.
    (1968/1978) Interpreting for international conferences. Problems of language and communication. Washington: Pen and Booth.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Signorelli, T. M., Haarmann, H. J. & Obler, L. K.
    (2012) Working memory in simultaneous interpreters: Effects of task and age. International Journal of Bilingualism16 (2), 198–212. 10.1177/1367006911403200
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911403200 [Google Scholar]
  63. Stavrakaki, S., Megari, K., Kosmidis, M. H., Apostolidou, M. & Takou, E.
    (2012) Working memory and verbal fluency in simultaneous interpreters. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology34 (6), 624–633. 10.1080/13803395.2012.667068
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2012.667068 [Google Scholar]
  64. Sterne, J. A. C. & Harbord, R. M.
    (2004) Funnel plots in meta-analysis. The Stata Journal4, 127–141. 10.1177/1536867X0400400204
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0400400204 [Google Scholar]
  65. Thompson, S. G. & Pocock, S. J.
    (1991) Can meta-analysis be trusted?The Lancet338 (8775), 1127–1130. 10.1016/0140‑6736(91)91975‑Z
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(91)91975-Z [Google Scholar]
  66. Timarová, Š.
    (2008) Working memory and simultaneous interpreting. InP. Boulogne (Ed.), Translation and its others: Selected papers of the CETRA research seminar in translation studies 2007. www.arts.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers
    [Google Scholar]
  67. (2015) Working memory. InF. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. New York: Routledge, 443–446.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Timarová, Š. & Salaets, H.
    (2011) Learning styles, motivation and cognitive flexibility in interpreter training: Self-selection and aptitude. Interpreting13 (1), 31–52. 10.1075/intp.13.1.03tim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.1.03tim [Google Scholar]
  69. Timarová, Š.
    (2014) Simultaneous interpreting and working memory executive control. Interpreting16 (2), 139–168. 10.1075/intp.16.2.01tim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.16.2.01tim [Google Scholar]
  70. Timarová, Š., Čeňková, I., Meylaerts, R., Hertog, E., Szmalec, A. & Duyck, W.
    (2015) Simultaneous interpreting and working memory capacity. InA. Ferreira & J. W. Schwieter (Eds.), Psycholinguistic and cognitive inquiries into translation and interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 101–126.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Tzou, Y.-Z., Eslami, Z. R., Chen, H.-C. & Vaid, J.
    (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 Bilingualism16 (2), 213–227. 10.1177/1367006911403197
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911403197 [Google Scholar]
  72. Van der Noort, M. W. M. L., Bosch, P. & Hugdahl, K.
    (2006) Foreign language proficiency and working memory capacity. European Psychologist11 (4), 289–296. 10.1027/1016‑9040.11.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.11.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  73. Van Dijk, R., Christoffels, I. K., Postma, A. & Hermans, D.
    (2012) The relation between the working memory skills of sign language interpreters and the quality of their interpretations. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition15 (2), 340–350. 10.1017/S1366728911000198
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000198 [Google Scholar]
  74. Vevea, J. L. & Woods, C. M.
    (2005) Publication bias in research synthesis: Sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions. Psychological Methods10 (4), 428–443. 10.1037/1082‑989X.10.4.428
    https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.4.428 [Google Scholar]
  75. Viechtbauer, W.
    (2005) Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics30 (3), 261–293. 10.3102/10769986030003261
    https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986030003261 [Google Scholar]
  76. (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software36 (3), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v036.i03
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03 [Google Scholar]
  77. Viechtbauer, W. & Cheung, M. W.-L.
    (2010) Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods1 (2), 112–125. 10.1002/jrsm.11
    https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.11 [Google Scholar]
  78. Von Hippel, P. T.
    (2015) The heterogeneity statistic I2 can be biased in small meta-analyses. BMC Medical Research Methodology15, 35. 10.1186/s12874‑015‑0024‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0024-z [Google Scholar]
  79. Wang, J. & Napier, J.
    (2013) Signed language working memory capacity of signed language interpreters and deaf signers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 18 (2), 271–286. 10.1093/deafed/ens068
    https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ens068 [Google Scholar]
  80. (2014) Measuring bilingual working memory capacity of professional Auslan/English interpreters: A comparison of two scoring methods. The Interpreters’ Newsletter19, 45–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Wingfield, A., Stine, E. A. L., Lahar, C. J. & Aberdeen, J. S.
    (1988) Does the capacity of working memory change with age?Experimental Aging Research14 (2–3), 103–107. 10.1080/03610738808259731
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03610738808259731 [Google Scholar]
  82. Woumans, E., Ceuleers, E., Van der Linden, L., Szmalec, A. & Duyck, W.
    (2015) Verbal and nonverbal cognitive control in bilinguals and interpreters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition41 (5), 1579–1586.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Wright, H. H.
    (2016) Cognition, language, and aging. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.200
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.200 [Google Scholar]
  84. Yang, H., Yang, S., Ceci, S. J. & Wang, Q.
    (2005) Effects of bilinguals’ controlled-attention on working memory and recognition. InJ. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstand, & J. MacSwan (Eds.), ISB4 proceedings of the 4th international symposium on bilingualism. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 2401–2404.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Yudes, C., Macizo, P. & Bajo, T.
    (2012) Coordinating comprehension and production in simultaneous interpreters: Evidence from the articulatory suppression effect. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition15 (2), 329–339. 10.1017/S1366728911000150
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000150 [Google Scholar]
  86. Yudes, C., Macizo, P., Morales, L. & Bajo, M. T.
    (2013) Comprehension and error monitoring in simultaneous interpreters. Applied Psycholinguistics34 (5), 1039–1057. 10.1017/S0142716412000112
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716412000112 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00026.mel
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00026.mel
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognitive processing , expertise , meta-analysis , simultaneous interpreting and working memory
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error