Translators’ Allocation of Cognitive Resources in Two Translation Directions: A Study Using Eye-Tracking and Keystroke Logging
Source abstract
Abstract
This study investigates how novice translators distribute their cognitive resources during translation between English and Chinese in both directions, with particular attention paid to the role of translation direction and the divergence between empirical findings and participants’ introspective reports. A combination of eye-tracking and keystroke logging was used to quantify cognitive effort, incorporating participant variation, attention unit type (ST, TT, parallel), gaze event duration, and average pupil dilation. A Generalized Linear Model (GLM) was applied, with average pupil dilation as the response variable and gaze event duration, AU type, and participant as covariates. An interaction term between gaze event duration and AU type was included in the E-C GLM but omitted from the C-E GLM due to non-significance. The results reveal distinct cognitive demands across translation directions. In English–Chinese (E-C) translation, ST processing significantly reduces pupil dilation (by 3.56%, p < 0.001), whereas TT processing leads to increased cognitive load, particularly during prolonged fixations, with pupil dilation increasing by 1.4% (p = 0.033). In Chinese–English (C-E) translation, ST processing does not significantly differ from parallel processing (p = 0.285), and TT processing reduces pupil dilation by 4.75% (p < 0.001), suggesting that it involves a lower cognitive effort than E-C translation. Gaze event duration significantly affects pupil dilation in C-E translation (p < 0.001); however, its influence in E-C translation varies according to the types of cognitive processing involved. Moreover, a significant gap is observed between the participants’ self-reported reflections and the quantitative data, a disparity that is strongly shaped by the direction of translation. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of cognitive effort in translation and raise implications for translator training, assessment, and cognitive translation studies, particularly in contexts where translation direction and processing mode interact to shape cognitive demand.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Language, Metaphor, and Cognition · Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism · Interpreting and Communication in Healthcare
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
China-Africa Institute, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
Division of Literature and Languages, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK
Department of Actuarial Mathematics and Statistics, Maxwell Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK
Funding
A Study on the Influence of Historical and Cultural Empathy between China and Africa on the Cognitive Process of Translators · Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the UCCL
References (45)
Show source-provided references
1. Testing the unique item hypothesis with phrasal verbs in Chinese–English translations of Lu Xun’s short stories: The perspective of translation directionality10.1057/s41599-024-02814-y ↗
2. Alves, F., and Jakobsen, A.L. (2021). The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition, Routledge.10.4324/9781315178127 ↗
3. Muñoz Martín, R., Sun, S., and Li, D. (2021). The Impact of Directionality on Cognitive Patterns in the Translation of Metaphors. Advances in Cognitive Translation Studies, Springer. New Frontiers in Translation Studies.10.1007/978-981-16-2070-6 ↗
4. Translation directionality and the Inhibitory Control Model: A machine learning approach to an eye-tracking study10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1196910 ↗
5. Martín, R.M., Sun, S., and Li, D. (2021). Advances in Cognitive Translation Studies, Springer.
6. Latif, M.M. (2025). Researching and Modelling the Translation Process, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781009338035 ↗
7. Predicting Fluency with Language Proficiency, Working Memory, and Directionality in Simultaneous Interpreting10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01543 ↗
8. Gile, D. (1995). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training, John Benjamins.10.1075/btl.8(1st) ↗
9. Hu, T., Wang, X., and Xu, H. (2022). Eye-Tracking in Interpreting Studies: A Review of Four Decades of Empirical Studies. Front. Psychol., 13.10.3389/fpsyg.2022.872247 ↗
10. Jia, J., Wei, Z., Cheng, H., and Wang, X. (2023). Translation directionality and translator anxiety: Evidence from eye movements in L1-L2 translation. Front. Psychol., 14.10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1120140 ↗
11. What Were They Thinking?! Students’ Decision Making in L1 and L2 Translation Processes
12. Hvelplund, K. (2011). Allocation of Cognitive Resources in Translation: An Eye-Tracking and Key-Logging Study. [Ph. D Thesis, Copenhagen Business School].
13. Evidence of parallel processing during translation10.7202/1027474ar ↗
14. The influence of directionality on the quality of translation output in educational settings10.1080/1750399X.2019.1594563 ↗
15. Godijns, R., and Hinderdael, M. (2005). Directionality in Interpreting. The ‘Retour’ or the Native?, Communication and Cognition.
16. Strategies of Simultaneous Interpreting and Directionality
17. The Influence of Translation Direction on the Process and Quality of Information Processing
18. Eye-movement Recording as a Tool for Studying Syntactic Processing in a Second Language: A Review of Methodologies and Experimental Findings10.1191/0267658305sr257oa ↗
19. Parallel translation process in consecutive interpreting: Differences between beginning and advanced interpreting students10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104358 ↗
20. Studying Directionality in Simultaneous Interpreting through an Electronic Corpus: EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus)
21. Studying Interpreters’ Stress in Crisis Communication Evidence from Multimodal Technology of Eye-tracking, Heart Rate and Galvanic Skin Response10.1080/13556509.2022.2159782 ↗
22. Empirical Translation Process Research: Past and Possible Future Perspectives
23. Working Memory in Writing: Empirical Evidence from the Dual-task Technique10.1027/1016-9040.9.1.32 ↗
24. Logging time delay in translation
25. Göpferich, S., Jakobsen, A.L., and Mees, I. (2008). Eye Movement Behaviour across Four Different Types of Reading Task. Looking at Eyes: Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing, Copenhagen Studies in Language 36, Samfundslitteratur.
26. Danks, H., Shreve, G., Fountain, S., and McBeath, M. (1997). The Cognitive Study of Translation and Interpretation: Three Approaches. Cognitive Processing in Translation and Interpreting, Sage.
27. A Relevance Theory approach to the investigation of inferential processes10.1075/btl.45.04alv ↗
28. Segmentation in translation: Differences across level of expertise and difficulty10.1075/target.17.1.04dra ↗
29. Inside the Monitor Model: Process of Default and Challenged Translation Production
30. Think-Aloud Protocol Studies into Translation- an Annotated Bibliography10.1075/target.14.1.05jaa ↗
31. Towards a classification of translator profiles based on eye-tracking and keylogging data10.17239/jowr-2013.05.01.6 ↗
32. Dragsted, B. (2004). Segmentation in Translation and Translation Memory Systems. An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Segmentation and Effects of Integrating a TM System into the Translation Process. [Ph.D Thesis, Copenhagen Business School].
33. Probing the Unit of Translation in Time: Aspects of the Design and Development of a Web Application for Storing, Annotating, and Querying Translation Process Data10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.5 ↗
34. Gazing and typing activities during translation: A comparative study of translation units of professional and student translators
35. Investigating the Conceptual-procedural Distinction in the Translation Process: A Relevance-theoretic Analysis of Micro and Macro translation units10.1075/target.25.1.09alv ↗
36. Brislin, R. (1976). Interpretation: A Psychological Approach to Translating. Translation: Applications and Research, Gardner.
37. The monitor model revisited: Evidence from process research
38. Carl, M., Bangalore, S., and Schaeffer, M. (2016). Word Translation Entropy: Evidence of Early Target Language Activation During Reading for Translation. New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4 ↗
39. Ernst, A.G. (2000). Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context, St. Jerome.
40. On the Significance of the Cognitive Core of Translation10.1080/13556509.2005.10799188 ↗
41. Li, D., Lai, V., Lei, C., and He, Y. (2019). Outline for a Relevance Theoretical Model of Machine Translation Post-editing. Researching Cognitive Processes of Translation, Springer.10.1007/978-981-13-1984-6 ↗
42. Chang, V.C. (2009). Testing Applicability of Eye-tracking and fMRI to Translation and Interpreting Studies: An Investigation into Directionality. [Ph.D Thesis, Imperial College].
43. Eye movements in reading, and information processing10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 ↗
44. Eye Movements and Autonomic Regulation of Cognitive Activity During Reading in Adolescence. Part I. Functional “Cost” of Cognitive Activity when Reading Text from the Screen in Adolescence10.1134/S0362119723600571 ↗
45. Tra&Co, Group (2021). Assessing indicators of cognitive effort in professional translators: A study on language dominance and directionality. Translation, Interpreting, Cognition: The Way Out of the Box, Science Press. Language.