What is it about?
Studies about working memory and interpreting have used a variety of methods and yielded conflicting results. This paper analyses the cognitive tasks which have been used so far to assess which ones are the best to highlight differences between interpreters and non-interpreters. The method used is the statistical technique of meta-analysis, through which the results of interpreters and of non-interpreters are compared in four cognitive tasks. Interpreters show a significant working memory advantage in tasks based on verbal stimuli, but not in tasks based on non-verbal stimuli. In addition, differences are larger when there is a wider gap in interpreting expertise between the two groups.
Featured Image
Photo by Margarida Afonso on Unsplash
Why is it important?
A meta-analysis about the tasks used so far is useful to guide methodological choices for future research.
Perspectives
I think there is a need for recognizing the value of reporting null results, as well as for study replication. I hope that this article explains clearly the steps to take to carry out a meta-analysis and raises awareness on the importance of previous research. Taking stock of past results is very important to optimise the time and effort devoted to future research.
Serena Ghiselli
University of Salento
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Working memory tasks in interpreting studies, Translation Cognition & Behavior, July 2022, John Benjamins,
DOI: 10.1075/tcb.00063.ghi.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
