口译研究中的工作记忆任务

Serena Ghiselli
{"title":"口译研究中的工作记忆任务","authors":"Serena Ghiselli","doi":"10.1075/tcb.00063.ghi","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Studies about working memory (WM) and interpreting have used a variety of methods and results are often\n conflicting. There is therefore the need to analyse the cognitive tasks which have been used so far to assess their effectiveness\n in detecting WM performance differences. This paper presents the findings of a meta-analysis that compares the results of\n interpreters and interpreting students (study group) to the results of non-interpreters (control group) in four cognitive tasks\n (reading span, n-back task, listening span and dual tasks). Interpreters show a significant WM advantage of medium size over\n non-interpreters in tasks based on verbal stimuli, but not in tasks based on non-verbal stimuli. In addition, differences are\n larger when there is a wider gap in interpreting expertise between the two groups.","PeriodicalId":313749,"journal":{"name":"Translation, Cognition & Behavior","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Working memory tasks in interpreting studies\",\"authors\":\"Serena Ghiselli\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/tcb.00063.ghi\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Studies about working memory (WM) and interpreting have used a variety of methods and results are often\\n conflicting. There is therefore the need to analyse the cognitive tasks which have been used so far to assess their effectiveness\\n in detecting WM performance differences. This paper presents the findings of a meta-analysis that compares the results of\\n interpreters and interpreting students (study group) to the results of non-interpreters (control group) in four cognitive tasks\\n (reading span, n-back task, listening span and dual tasks). Interpreters show a significant WM advantage of medium size over\\n non-interpreters in tasks based on verbal stimuli, but not in tasks based on non-verbal stimuli. In addition, differences are\\n larger when there is a wider gap in interpreting expertise between the two groups.\",\"PeriodicalId\":313749,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Translation, Cognition & Behavior\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Translation, Cognition & Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00063.ghi\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translation, Cognition & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00063.ghi","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

关于工作记忆和口译的研究使用了多种方法,结果往往相互矛盾。因此,有必要分析迄今为止使用的认知任务,以评估它们在检测WM表现差异方面的有效性。本文介绍了一项meta分析的结果,比较了口译员和口译学生(研究组)与非口译学生(对照组)在四个认知任务(阅读广度、n-back任务、听力广度和双重任务)上的结果。在基于言语刺激的任务中,口译员比非口译员表现出显著的中等规模的WM优势,但在基于非言语刺激的任务中则没有。此外,两组之间的口译专业知识差距越大,差异就越大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Working memory tasks in interpreting studies
Studies about working memory (WM) and interpreting have used a variety of methods and results are often conflicting. There is therefore the need to analyse the cognitive tasks which have been used so far to assess their effectiveness in detecting WM performance differences. This paper presents the findings of a meta-analysis that compares the results of interpreters and interpreting students (study group) to the results of non-interpreters (control group) in four cognitive tasks (reading span, n-back task, listening span and dual tasks). Interpreters show a significant WM advantage of medium size over non-interpreters 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信