1887
image of Does it help to see the speaker’s lip movements?
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Simultaneous interpreting combines auditory and visual information. Within a multitude of visual inputs that interpreters receive, the one from the speaker seems to be particularly important ( ). One reason might be that lip movements enhance speech perception and might thus reduce cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting and hence, induce lower mental effort. This effect may be even more pronounced when noise is added to the source speech. This study was conducted to investigate cognitive load and mental effort during simultaneous interpreting (a) with and without the ability to see speaker’s lip movements, and (b) with and without interfering noise. A group of listeners was included to control for task-related effects. Mental effort and cognitive load were measured using pupillometry, interpreting accuracy measures, and subjective reports. The facilitation hypothesis for lip movements was not confirmed. However, the pupillometric data suggests that lip movements may increase arousal.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00049.gie
2021-05-19
2021-06-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, Linda
    1994 “Simultaneous Interpretation: Contextual and Translation Aspects.” InBenjamins Translation Library: Vol.3. Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation. Edited byS. Lambert and B. Moser-Mercer, 101–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.3.11and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.11and [Google Scholar]
  2. Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker
    2015 “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software67 (1). doi:  10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  3. Beatty, Jack
    1982 “Phasic Not Tonic Pupillary Responses Vary With Auditory Vigilance Performance.” Psychophysiology, 19(2): 167–172. doi:  10.1111/j.1469‑8986.1982.tb02540.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1982.tb02540.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernstein, Lynne E., Edward T. Auer, Sumik Takayanagi
    2004 “Auditory Speech Detection in Noise Enhanced by Lipreading.” Speech Communication, 44(1–4): 5–18. doi:  10.1016/j.specom.2004.10.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2004.10.011 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brancazio, Lawrence, Catherine T. Best and Carol A. Fowler
    2006 “Visual Influences on Perception of Speech and Nonspeech Vocal-Tract Events.” Language and Speech, 49(1): 21–53. doi:  10.1177/00238309060490010301
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309060490010301 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Robert and Howard. E. Page
    1939 “Pupil Dilatation and Dark Adaptation.” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25(4): 347–360. doi:  10.1037/h0060296
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060296 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bühler, Hildegund
    1985 “Conference Interpreting: A Multichannel Communication Phenomenon.” Meta: Journal des traducteurs, 30(1): 49–54. doi:  10.7202/002176ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/002176ar [Google Scholar]
  8. Chapman, C. Richard, Shunichi Oka, David H. Bradshaw, Robert C. Jacobson and Gary W. Donaldson
    1999 “Phasic Pupil Dilation Response to Noxious Stimulation in Normal Volunteers: Relationship to Brain Evoked Potentials and Pain Report.” Psychophysiology, 36(1): 44–52. doi:  10.1017/S0048577299970373
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0048577299970373 [Google Scholar]
  9. Christensen, Rune H. B.
    2015Ordinal – Regression Models for Ordinal Data. Version 2015.1–21. www.cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal (accessed01 December 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Courtney, Christopher G., Michael E. Dawson, Anne M. Schell, Arvind Iyer, Thomas D. Parsons
    2010 “Better than the Real Thing: Eliciting fear with Moving and Static Computer-generated Stimuli.” International Journal of Psychophysiology, 78(2): 107–114. doi:  10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2010.06.028
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2010.06.028 [Google Scholar]
  11. Davies, M.
    2008 Word frequency data. Retrieved fromThe Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/ (accessed19 March 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Díaz-Galaz, Stephanie, Presentacion Padilla Benítez, and M. Teresa Bajo Molina
    2015 “The Role of Advance Preparation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Comparison of Professional Interpreters and Interpreting Students”. Interpreting17(1): 1–25. doi:  10.1075/intp.17.1.01dia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.1.01dia [Google Scholar]
  13. Dillinger, Mike
    1990 “Comprehension during Interpreting: What Do Interpreters Know that Bilinguals Don’t?” The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 3: 41–58. AccessedMarch 03 17, 2021. hdl.handle.net/10077/2154
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, Michaela Albl-Mikasa, Katrin Andermatt, Andrea Hunziker Heeb and Caroline Lehr
    2020 “Cognitive Load in Processing ELF: Translators, Interpreters, and Other Multilinguals.” Journal of English as a Lingua Franca9(2): 217–238. doi:  10.1515/jelf‑2020‑2039
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2020-2039 [Google Scholar]
  15. Engelhardt, Paul E., Fernanda Ferreira and Elana G. Patsenko
    2010 “Pupillometry Reveals Processing Load during Spoken Language Comprehension.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(4): 639–645. doi:  10.1080/17470210903469864
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903469864 [Google Scholar]
  16. European Commission
    European Commission 2009a “United Airlines rewards fittest people.” Retrieved fromSpeech Repository: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/sr/speech/united-airlines-rewards-fittestpeople (accessed4 February 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. European Commission
    European Commission 2009b “Disenchantment at work.” Retrieved fromSpeech Repository: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/sr/speech/disenchantment-work (accessed4 February 2021)
    [Google Scholar]
  18. European Commission
    European Commission 2012a “Demographic shift in Europe.” Retrieved fromSpeech Repository: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/sr/speech/demographic-shift-europe (accessed4 February 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  19. European Commission
    European Commission 2012b “Greece in the doldrums.” Retrieved fromSpeech Repository: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/sr/speech/greece-doldrums (accessed4 February 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fisk, Angus S., Shu K. E. Tam, L. A. Brown, Vladyslav V. Vyazovskiy, David M. Bannerman and Stuart N. Peirson
    2018 “Light and Cognition: Roles for Circadian Rhythms, Sleep, and Arousal.” Frontiers in Neurology, 9: 56. doi:  10.3389/fneur.2018.00056
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00056 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gerver, David
    2002 “The Effects of Source Language Presentation Rate on the Performance of Simultaneous Conference Interpreters.” The Interpreting Studies. Reader. Edited byF. Pöchhacker and M. Shesinger, 52–66. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 1974 “The Effects of Noise on the Performance of Simultaneous Interpreters: Accuracy of Performance.” Acta Psychologica, 38(3): 159–167. doi:  10.1016/0001‑6918(74)90031‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(74)90031-6 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gieshoff, Anne Catherine
    2021 “The impact of visible lip movements on silent pauses in simultaneous interpreting.” Interpreting. Advanced online publication. doi:  10.1075/intp.00061.gie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00061.gie [Google Scholar]
  24. 2018 “The Impact of Visual Input on Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting”. Mainz: Johannes Gutenberg Universität.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gile, Daniel
    2009Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training: Revised edition (2nd ed.). doi:  10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  26. Granholm, Eric, Robert F. Asarnow, Andrew J. Sarkin and Karen, L.
    1996 “Pupillary Responses Index Cognitive Resource Limitations.” Psychophysiology, 33: 457–461. doi:  10.1111/j.1469‑8986.1996.tb01071.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1996.tb01071.x [Google Scholar]
  27. Halverson, Sandra
    2017 “Multimethod approaches.” The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited byJ. Schwieter and A. Ferreira. 195–212. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell. doi:  10.1002/9781119241485.ch11
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch11 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hild, Adelina
    2015 “Discourse Comprehension in Simultaneous Interpreting: The Role of Expertise and Redundancy.” Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting. Edited byA. Ferreira and J. W. Schwieter. 67–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.115.04hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.115.04hil [Google Scholar]
  29. Hyönä, Jukka, Jorma Tommola, Anna-Maria Alaja
    1995 “Pupil Dilation as a Measure of Processing Load in Simultaneous Interpretation and Other Language Tasks.” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 48(3): 598–612. doi:  10.1080/14640749508401407
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749508401407 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ivars, Amparo J., Daniel P. Calatayud
    2001 “‘I Failed because I Got Nervous’. Anxiety and Performance in Interpreter Trainees: An Empirical Study.” The Interpreter’s Newsletter, 11: 105–120. AccessedMarch 17, 2021. hdl.handle.net/10077/2452
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jesse, Alexandra, Nick Vrignaud, Michael M. Cohen and Dominic W. Massaro
    2000 “The Processing of Information from Multiple Sources in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Interpreting, 5(2): 95–115. doi:  10.1075/intp.5.2.04jes
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.5.2.04jes [Google Scholar]
  32. Jordan, Timothy R. and Paul Sergeant
    2000 “Effects of Distance on Visual and Audiovisual Speech Recognition.” Language and Speech, 43(1): 107–124. doi:  10.1177/00238309000430010401
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309000430010401 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kahneman, Daniel
    1973Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Korpal, Paweł
    2016 “Interpreting as a Stressful Activity: Physiological Measures of Stress in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 52(2): 297–316. doi:  10.1515/psicl‑2016‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2016-0011 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kramer, Sophia E., Theo S. Kapteyn, Josst M. Festen, and Dirk J. Kuik
    1997 “Assessing Aspects of Auditory Handicap by Means of Pupil Dilation.” Audiology, 36: 155–164. doi:  10.3109/00206099709071969
    https://doi.org/10.3109/00206099709071969 [Google Scholar]
  36. Krejtz, Krzysztof, Andrew T. Duchowski, Anna Niedzielska, Cezary Biele, and Izabela Krejtz
    2018 “Eye Tracking Cognitive Load Using Pupil Diameter and Microsaccades with Fixed Gaze”. PLOS ONE13(9): e0203629. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0203629
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203629 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kuchinsky, Stefanie E., Jayne B. Ahlstrom, Kenneth I. Vaden, Stephanie L. Cute, Larry E. Humes, Judy R. Dubno and Mark A. Eckert
    2013 “Pupil Size Varies with Word Listening and Response Selection Difficulty in Older Adults with Hearing Loss: Pupil Size in Older Adults.” Psychophysiology, 50(1): 23–34. doi:  10.1111/j.1469‑8986.2012.01477.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01477.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Lecumberri, Maria L. G., Martin Cooke and Anne Cutler
    2010 “Non-native Speech Perception in Adverse Conditions: A Review.” Speech Communication, 52(1): 864–886. doi:  10.1016/j.specom.2010.08.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2010.08.014 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lee, Jieun
    2008 “Rating Scales for Interpreting Performance Assessment.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 2(2): 165–184. doi:  10.1080/1750399X.2008.10798772
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2008.10798772 [Google Scholar]
  40. Liu, Minhua, Diane L. Schallert, and Patrick J. Carroll
    2004 ‘Working Memory and Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting’. Interpreting6(1): 19–42. doi:  10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu [Google Scholar]
  41. Lowenstein, Otto, Richard Feinberg and Irene Loewenfeld
    1963 “Pupillary Movements During Acute and Chronic Fatigue A New Test for the Objective Evaluation of Tiredness.” Investigative Ophthalmology, 2(2): 138–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Massaro, Dominic W. And Michael M. Cohen
    1999 “Speech Perception in Perceivers with Hearing Loss: Synergy of Multiple Modalities.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42(1), 21–41. doi:  10.1044/jslhr.4201.21
    https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4201.21 [Google Scholar]
  43. Mirman, Daniel
    2014Growth Curve Analysis and Visualization Using R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Moser-Mercer, Barbara, Alexandra Künzli and Marina Korac
    1998 “Prolonged Turns in Interpreting: Effects on Quality, Physiological and Psychological Stress (Pilot study).” Interpreting, 3(1): 47–64. doi:  10.1075/intp.3.1.03mos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.3.1.03mos [Google Scholar]
  45. Oliva, Manuel and Andrey Anikin
    2018 “Pupil Dilation Reflects the Time Course of Emotion Recognition in Human Vocalizations.” Scientific Reports, 8, 4871. doi:  10.1038/s41598‑018‑23265‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23265-x [Google Scholar]
  46. Peelle, Jonathan E. and Mitchell S. Sommers
    2015 “Prediction and Constraint in Audiovisual Speech Perception.” Cortex, 68: 169–181. doi:  10.1016/j.cortex.2015.03.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.03.006 [Google Scholar]
  47. Peirce, Jonathan, Jeremy R. Gray, Sol Simpson, Michael MacAskill, Richard Höchenberger, Hiroyuki Sogo, Eric Kastman and Jonas Kristoffer Lindeløv
    2019 “PsychoPy2: Experiments in Behavior made Easy.” Behavior Research Methods, 51(1): 195–203. doi:  10.3758/s13428‑018‑01193‑y
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y [Google Scholar]
  48. Peirce, Jonathan W.
    2007 “PsychoPy – Psychophysics Software in Python.” Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1–2), 8–13. doi:  10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017 [Google Scholar]
  49. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2016 “R: A language and environment for statistical computing.” Version 3.2.4. Retrieved fromR Foundation for Statistical Computing: https://www.R-project.org (accessed1 March 2016).
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Rennert, Sylvie
    2008 “Visual Input in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Meta: journal des traducteurs, 53(1): 204–217. doi:  10.7202/017983ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/017983ar [Google Scholar]
  51. Roziner, Ilan & Miriam Shlesinger
    2010 “Much Ado about Something Remote: Stress and Performance in Remote Interpreting.” Interpreting, 12(2): 214–247. doi:  10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz [Google Scholar]
  52. Ruiz Rosendo, Lucía and María C. Galván
    2019 “Coping with Speed: An Experimental Study on Expert and Novice Interpreter Performance in the Simultaneous Interpreting of Scientific Discourse.” Babel, 65(1): 1–25. doi:  10.1075/babel.00081.rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00081.rui [Google Scholar]
  53. Seeber, Kilian G.
    2017 “Multimodal Processing in Simultaneous Interpreting.” The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited byJ. Schwieter and A. Ferreira. 461–475. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell. doi:  10.1002/9781119241485.ch25
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch25 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2015 “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Measures and Methods.” Interdisciplinarity in translation and interpreting process research. Edited byM. Ehrensberger-Dow, S. Göpferich & S. O’Brien (Eds.). 18–33. doi:  10.1075/bct.72.03see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.72.03see [Google Scholar]
  55. Seeber, Kilian G. and Dirk Kerzel
    2012 “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Model Meets Data.” International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(2): 228–242. doi:  10.1177/1367006911402982
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911402982 [Google Scholar]
  56. Seeber, Kilian G.
    2011 “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Interpreting, 13(2): 176–204. 10.1075/intp.13.2.02see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.2.02see [Google Scholar]
  57. Setton, Robin
    1999Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
  58. Seubert, Sabine
    2019Visuelle Informationen beim Simultandolmetschen: Eine Eyetracking-Studie. Berlin: Frank & Timme GmbH.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Stachowiak-Szymczak, Katarzyna
    2019Eye Movements and Gestures in Simultaneous and Consecutive Interpreting. doi:  10.1007/978‑3‑030‑19443‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19443-7 [Google Scholar]
  60. Sumby, William H. and Irwin Pollack
    1954 “Visual Contribution to Speech Intelligibility in Noise.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, (26): 212–215. doi:  10.1121/1.1907309
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1907309 [Google Scholar]
  61. Tabri, Dollen, Kim M. S. A. Chacra & Tim Pring
    2010 “Speech Perception in Noise by Monolingual, Bilingual and Trilingual Listeners.” International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 46(4): 411–422. doi:  10.3109/13682822.2010.519372
    https://doi.org/10.3109/13682822.2010.519372 [Google Scholar]
  62. Thomas, Sharon M., Timothy R. Jordan
    2004 “Contributions of Oral and Extraoral Facial Movement to Visual and Audiovisual Speech Perception.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(5): 873–888. doi:  10.1037/0096‑1523.30.5.873
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.5.873 [Google Scholar]
  63. Tobii support
    Tobii support 2016, July20. Personal communication.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Tobii Technology
    Tobii Technology 2010Tobii TX300 Eye Tracker. User Manual. AccessedMarch 17, 2021. https://www.tobiipro.com/siteassets/tobii-pro/user-manuals/tobii-pro-tx300-eye-tracker-user-manual.pdf?v=2.0
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Tommola, Jorma and Johan Lindholm
    1995 “Experimental Research on Interpreting: Which Dependent Variable?” Topics in interpreting research. Edited byJ. Tommola. 121–133. Turku: University of Turku.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Tye-Murray, Nancy, Mitchell Sommers and Brent Spehar
    2007 “Auditory and Visual Lexical Neighborhoods in Audiovisual Speech Perception.” Trends in Amplification, 11(4): 233–241. doi:  10.1177/1084713807307409
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1084713807307409 [Google Scholar]
  67. van der Wel, Pauline and Henk van Steenbergen
    2018 “Pupil Dilation as an Index of Effort in Cognitive Control Tasks: A Review.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(6): 2005–2015. doi:  10.3758/s13423‑018‑1432‑y
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1432-y [Google Scholar]
  68. Vatikiotis-Bateson, Eric, Inge-Marie Eigsti, Sumio Yano and Kevin G. Munhall
    1998 “Eye Movement of Perceivers during Audiovisual Speech Perception.” Perception & Psychophysics, 60(6): 926–940. doi:  10.3758/BF03211929
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211929 [Google Scholar]
  69. von Kriegstein, Katharina, Özgür Dogan, Martina Grüter, Anne-Lise Giraud, Christian A. Kell, Thomas Grüter, Andreas Kleinschmidt and Stefan A. Kiebel
    2008 “Simulation of Talking Faces in the Human Brain Improves Auditory Speech Recognition.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(18): 6747–6752. doi:  10.1073/pnas.0710826105
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710826105 [Google Scholar]
  70. Wickham, H.
    2009ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑98141‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3 [Google Scholar]
  71. Wong, Hoe K. and Julien Epps
    2016 “Pupillary Transient Responses to Within-Task Cognitive Load Variation.” Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 137: 47–63. doi:  10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.08.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.08.017 [Google Scholar]
  72. Wu, Zhiwei
    2019 “Text Characteristics, Perceived Difficulty and Task Performance in Sight Translation: An Exploratory Study of University-level Students.” Interpreting, 21(2): 196–219. doi:  10.1075/intp.00027.wu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00027.wu [Google Scholar]
  73. Yoon, Jinny J. and Helen V. Danesh-Meyer
    2019 “Caffeine and the Eye.” Survey of Ophthalmology, 64(3): 334–344. doi:  10.1016/j.survophthal.2018.10.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2018.10.005 [Google Scholar]
  74. Zekveld, Adriana A., Dirk J. Heslenfeld, Ingrid S. Johnsrude, Niek J. Versfeld and Sophia E. Kramer
    2014 “The Eye as a Window to the Listening Brain: Neural Correlates of Pupil Size as a Measure of Cognitive Listening Load.” NeuroImage, 101: 76–86. doi:  10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.069
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.069 [Google Scholar]
  75. Zwischenberger, Cornelia
    2010 “Quality Criteria in Simultaneous Interpreting: An International vs. A National View.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 15: 127–142. Accessed17 March 2021. hdl.handle.net/10077/4754
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00049.gie
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00049.gie
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: pupillometry; arousal; visual input; simultaneous interpreting; cognitive load
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