1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association
  4. Volume 20, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 20, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1932-2798
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2700
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of different remote simultaneous interpreting (RSI) settings on interpreter performance, experience, anxiety, and cognitive load. Thirty-six professional English-Polish and Spanish-Italian interpreters performed RSI in three conditions: with a co-located boothmate, a not co-located boothmate communicating via chat, and a boothmate in a virtual booth. Interpreter renditions, questionnaire responses, and eye-tracking data were analyzed. Objective accuracy and self-assessed performance were scored lowest in the not co-located setting, with little difference between the co-located and virtual conditions, suggesting that virtual booths may effectively replicate traditional booths. Unexpectedly, boothmate presence did not affect cognitive load, anxiety or user experience, demonstrating interpreters’ adaptability to diverse RSI setups. Findings also suggest positive attitudes toward technology and high technological competence improve user experience and facilitate more structured visual attention. The study enhances our understanding of RSI and underscores interpreters’ ability to navigate visually complex environments.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tis.24125.chm
2025-10-13
2026-07-21

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/tis.24125.chm
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AIIC
    AIIC 2020 “2020 AIIC Research Grant, Call for Applications.” AccessedDecember 4, 2024. https://aiic.org/uploaded/web/AIIC-research-grant_24-09-20.pdf
  2. Baumann, Antonia
    2023 “The pandemic booth: How spatial reconfigurations during the pandemic influence cooperation and communication among conference interpreters.” Interpreting and Society3(2): 150–168. 10.1177/27523810231178880
     https://doi.org/10.1177/27523810231178880 [Google Scholar]
  3. Braun, Sabine
    2019 “Technology and interpreting.” InRoutledge Handbook of Translation and Technology, ed. byMinako O’Hagan, 271–288. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315311258‑16
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315311258-16 [Google Scholar]
  4. Buján, Marta, and Camille Collard
    2022 “Remote simultaneous interpreting and COVID-19: Conference interpreters’ perspective.” InTranslation and Interpreting in the Age of COVID-19, ed. byKanglong Liu and Andrew K. F. Cheung, 133–150. Singapore: Springer Nature. 10.1007/978‑981‑19‑6680‑4_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6680-4_7 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, Sijia
    2017 “The construct of cognitive load in interpreting and its measurement.” Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice25(4): 640–657. 10.1080/0907676X.2016.1278026
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2016.1278026 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cheung, Andrew K. F.
    2023 “Remote simultaneous interpreting from home or hub: Accuracy of numbers from English into Mandarin Chinese.” InTranslation and Interpreting in the Age of COVID-19, ed. byKanglong Liu and Andrew K. F. Cheung, 113–132. Singapore: Springer Nature. 10.1007/978‑981‑19‑6680‑4_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6680-4_6 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chmiel, Agnieszka, and Nicoletta Spinolo
    2022 “Testing the impact of remote interpreting settings on interpreter experience and performance: Methodological challenges inside the virtual booth.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior5(2): 250–274. 10.1075/tcb.00068.chm
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00068.chm [Google Scholar]
  8. 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.” Target32(1): 37–58. 10.1075/target.18157.chm
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18157.chm [Google Scholar]
  9. Cifuentes-Férez, Paula, Ana Rojo López, and Laura Espín López
    2024 “Self-efficacy as a protective factor when translating under time pressure.” Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics211: 35–66. 10.35869/vial.v0i21.4215
     https://doi.org/10.35869/vial.v0i21.4215 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cuetos, Fernando, María González-Nosti, Analía Barbón, and Marc Brysbaert
    2011 “SUBTLEX-ESP: Spanish word frequencies based on film subtitles.” Psicológica321: 133–143.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. DG SCIC
    DG SCIC 2019 “Interpreting platforms: Consolidated test results and analysis.” DG SCIC. AccessedDecember 5, 2024. https://knowledge-centre-translation-interpretation.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/interpreting_platforms_-_consolidated_test_results_and_analysis_-_def.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Doherty, Stephen, Natalie Martschuk, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, and Sandra Hale
    2022 “An eye-movement analysis of overt visual attention during consecutive and simultaneous interpreting modes in a remotely interpreted investigative interview.” Frontiers in Psychology131: 764460. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.764460
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.764460 [Google Scholar]
  13. Donovan, Clare
    2023 “The consequences of fully remote interpretation on interpreter interaction and cooperation: A threat to professional cohesion?” INContext: Studies in Translation and Interculturalism3(1): 24–48. 10.54754/incontext.v3i1.59
     https://doi.org/10.54754/incontext.v3i1.59 [Google Scholar]
  14. Environmental Implementation Review
    Environmental Implementation Review 2022 “Environmental Implementation Review.” AccessedNovember 4, 2024. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/law-and-governance/environmental-implementation-review_en#country-reports
  15. Fan, Damien Chia-Ming
    2022 “Remote simultaneous interpreting: Exploring experiences and opinions of conference interpreters in Taiwan.” Compilation and Translation Review15(2): 159–198.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fernández Huerta, José
    1959 “Medidas sencillas de lecturabilidad.” Consigna2141: 29–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Gile, Daniel
    2009 Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gunning, Robert
    1969 “The Fog Index after twenty years.” International Journal of Business Communication6(2): 3–13. 10.1177/002194366900600202
     https://doi.org/10.1177/002194366900600202 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hart, Sandra G., and Lowell E. Staveland
    1988 “Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research.” InHuman Mental Workload, ed. byPeter A. Hancock and Najmedin Meshkati, 139–183. North-Holland: Elsevier Science. 10.1016/S0166‑4115(08)62386‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9 [Google Scholar]
  20. Holmqvist, Kenneth,
    2015 Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Hvelplund, Kristian Tangsgaard
    2014 “Eye tracking and the translation process: Reflections on the analysis and interpretation of eye-tracking data.” MonTI: Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación. Special issue11: 201–223. 10.6035/MonTI.2014.ne1.6
     https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2014.ne1.6 [Google Scholar]
  22. ISO 20539
    ISO 20539:2023 Translation, interpreting and related technology. Vocabulary. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Izura, Cristina, Fernando Cuetos, and Marc Brysbaert
    2014 “Lextale-Esp: A test to rapidly and efficiently assess the Spanish vocabulary size.” Psicológica35(1): 49–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, and Kristian Tangsgaard Hvelplund Jensen
    2008 “Eye movement behaviour across four different types of reading tasks.” InLooking at Eyes: Eye-tracking studies of Reading and Translation Processing, ed. bySusanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 103–124. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Jiménez Ivars, Amparo, and Daniel Pinazo Calatayud
    2001 “‘I failed because i got very nervous’: Anxiety and performance in interpreting trainees: An empirical study.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter111: 105–119.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Julian, Laura J.
    2011 “Measures of anxiety: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety (HADS-A).” Arthritis Care & Research631: S467–S472. 10.1002/acr.20561
     https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20561 [Google Scholar]
  27. 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.” Perspectives29(4): 469–488. 10.1080/0907676X.2020.1860097
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2020.1860097 [Google Scholar]
  28. Korpal, Paweł
    2017 Linguistic and Psychological Indicators of Stress in Simultaneous Interpreting. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Laugwitz, Bettina, Theo Held, and Martin Schrepp
    2008 “Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire.” InHCI and Usability for Education and Work, ed. byAndreas Holzinger, 63–76. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑540‑89350‑9_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89350-9_6 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lemhöfer, Kristin, and Mirjam Broersma
    2012 “Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English.” Behavior Research Methods44(2): 325–343. 10.3758/s13428‑011‑0146‑0
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0 [Google Scholar]
  31. Li, Tianyun, and Agnieszka Chmiel
    2024 “Automatic subtitles increase accuracy and decrease cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting.” Interpreting26(2): 1–29. 10.1075/intp.00111.li
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00111.li [Google Scholar]
  32. Liu, Yanmei, Binghan Zheng, and Hao Zhou
    2019 “Measuring the difficulty of text translation: The combination of text-focused and translator-oriented approaches.” Target31(1): 125–149. 10.1075/target.18036.zhe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18036.zhe [Google Scholar]
  33. Mahyub Rayaa, Bachir, and Anne Martin
    2022 “Remote simultaneous interpreting: Perceptions, practices and developments.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter271: 21–42. 10.13137/2421‑714X/34390
     https://doi.org/10.13137/2421-714X/34390 [Google Scholar]
  34. Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson
    2018 “Interpreter traits and the relationship with technology and visibility.” Translation and Interpreting Studies13(3): 366–392. 10.1075/tis.00021.mel
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00021.mel [Google Scholar]
  35. Monti, Cristina, Claudio Bendazzoli, Annalisa Sandrelli, and Mariachiara Russo
    2005 “Studying directionality in simultaneous interpreting through an electronic corpus: EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus).” Meta: Translators’ Journal50(4). 10.7202/019850ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/019850ar [Google Scholar]
  36. Moser-Mercer, Barbara
    2005 “Remote interpreting: The crucial role of presence.” Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée811: 73–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 2008 “Skill acquisition in interpreting.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer2(1): 1–28. 10.1080/1750399X.2008.10798764
     https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2008.10798764 [Google Scholar]
  38. Ratchford, Mark, and Michelle Barnhart
    2012 “Development and validation of the Technology Adoption Propensity (TAP) Index.” Journal of Business Research65(8): 1209–1215. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Rojo López, Ana M., Ana-Isabel Foulquié-Rubio, Laura Espín López, and Francisco Martínez Sánchez
    2021 “Analysis of speech rhythm and heart rate as indicators of stress on student interpreters.” Perspectives29(4): 591–607. 10.1080/0907676X.2021.1900305
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2021.1900305 [Google Scholar]
  40. Roziner, Ilan, and Miriam Shlesinger
    2010 “Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting.” Interpreting12(2): 214–247. 10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz [Google Scholar]
  41. 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.” InHuman-Computer Interaction: User Experience and Behavior, ed. byMasaaki Kurosu, 214–232. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑031‑05412‑9_16
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05412-9_16 [Google Scholar]
  42. Saeed, Ahmed M., Eloy Rodríguez González, Tomasz Korybski, Elena Davitti, and Sabine Braun
    2023 “Comparing interface designs to improve RSI platforms: Insights from an experimental study.” InProceedings of the International Conference on Human-Informed Translation and Interpreting Technology 2023, ed. byConstantin Orăsan, , 147–156. Naples, Italy. 7–9 July 2023. 10.26615/issn.2683‑0078.2023_013
     https://doi.org/10.26615/issn.2683-0078.2023_013 [Google Scholar]
  43. Salaets, Heidi, and Geert Brône
    2023 “‘Working at a distance from everybody’: Challenges (and some advantages) in working with video-based interpreting platforms.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter281: 189–209.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Seeber, Kilian G., Laura Keller, Rhona Amos, and Sophie Hengl
    2019 “Expectations vs. experience: Attitudes towards video remote conference interpreting.” Interpreting21(2): 270–304. 10.1075/intp.00030.see
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00030.see [Google Scholar]
  45. Seresi, Márta, and Petra Láncos
    2023 “Teamwork in the virtual booth: Conference interpreters’ experiences with RSI platforms.” InTranslation and Interpreting in the Age of COVID-19, ed. byKanglong Liu and Andrew K. F. Cheung, 181–196. Singapore: Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑19‑6680‑4_10
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6680-4_10 [Google Scholar]
  46. Setton, Robin, and Andrew Dawrant
    2016 Conference Interpreting: A Trainer’s Guide. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.121
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.121 [Google Scholar]
  47. Seubert, Sabine
    2019 Visuelle Informationen beim Simultandolmetschen. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Shin, Soo Yun, Ezgi Ulusoy, Kelsey Earle, Gary Bente, and Brandon Van Der Heide
    2022 “The effects of self-viewing in video chat during interpersonal work conversations.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication28(1): zmac028. 10.1093/jcmc/zmac028
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac028 [Google Scholar]
  49. Spielberger, Charles D.
    1983 State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Spielberger, Charles D., Richard Gorsuch, Robert E. Lushene, Peter R. Vagg, and Gerard A. Jacobs
    1970 Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Spielberger, Charles D., Luigi Pedrabissi, and Massimo Santinello
    2012 STAI, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Forma Y: Manuale. Firenze: Giunti OS.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Spinolo, Nicoletta, and Agnieszka Chmiel
    2023 AIIC 2020 Research Grant — Final Report.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Stachowiak-Szymczak, Katarzyna, and Paweł Korpal
    2019 “Interpreting accuracy and visual processing of numbers in professional and student interpreters: An eye-tracking study.” Across Languages and Cultures20(2): 235–251. 10.1556/084.2019.20.2.5
     https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2019.20.2.5 [Google Scholar]
  54. Sun, Sanjun, and Gregory M. Shreve
    2014 “Measuring translation difficulty: An empirical study.” Target26(1): 98–127. 10.1075/target.26.1.04sun
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.26.1.04sun [Google Scholar]
  55. 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 Psychology67(6): 1176–1190. 10.1080/17470218.2013.850521
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.850521 [Google Scholar]
  56. Wrześniewski, Kazimierz, and Tytus Sosnowski
    1983 Inwentarz Stanu i Cechy Lęku (ISCL): Polska Adaptacja STAI — Podręcznik. Olsztyn: Zakład Wytwarzania Pomocy Dydaktycznych.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Yuan, Lu, and Binhua Wang
    2023 “Cognitive processing of the extra visual layer of live captioning in simultaneous interpreting: triangulation of eye-tracked process and performance data.” Ampersand111: 100131. 10.1016/j.amper.2023.100131
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2023.100131 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/tis.24125.chm
Loading
The impact of remote interpreting settings on interpreter experience and performance
Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association 20, 212 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.24125.chm
/content/journals/10.1075/tis.24125.chm
/content/journals/10.1075/tis.24125.chm
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): anxiety; cognitive load; performance; remote simultaneous interpreting; virtual booth

Most Cited

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