Cover not available

Article published In: Translation, Cognition & Behavior
Vol. 5:1 (2022) ► pp.50–83

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Working memory tasks in interpreting studies

A meta-analysis

ORCiD logo with link | University of Bologna
Published online: 1 July 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00063.ghi
Abstract
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.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background and motivation
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Literature search and selection criteria
    • 3.2Task classification
    • 3.3Groups: Interpreters, interpreting students and non-interpreters
    • 3.4Variables
    • 3.5Statistical methods
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Reading span task
      • 4.1.1Reading span accuracy: Comparison between interpreters and non-interpreters
      • 4.1.2Reading span accuracy: Comparison between interpreting students and non-interpreters
      • 4.1.3Reading span accuracy: Comparison between interpreters and interpreting students
    • 4.2N-back task
      • 4.2.1N-back task accuracy: Comparison between interpreting students and non-interpreters
      • 4.2.2N-back task RT: Comparison between interpreting students and non-interpreters
    • 4.3Listening span task
      • 4.3.1Listening span accuracy: Comparison between interpreters and non-interpreters
      • 4.3.2Listening span accuracy: Comparison between interpreting students and non-interpreters
    • 4.4Dual tasks
      • 4.4.1Dual tasks accuracy: Comparison between interpreters and non-interpreters
      • 4.4.2Dual tasks accuracy: Comparison between interpreting students and non-interpreters
    • 4.5Analyses on all WM tasks
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (62)
References
Assink, Mark, Claudia E. van der Put, Machteld Hoeve, Sanne L. A. de Vries, Geert Jan J. M. Stams, and Frans J. Oort. 2015. ‘Risk Factors for Persistent Delinquent Behavior among Juveniles: A Meta-Analytic Review’. Clinical Psychology Review 421 (December): 47–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Assink, Mark, and Carlijn J. M. Wibbelink. 2016. ‘Fitting Three-Level Meta-Analytic Models in R: A Step-by-Step Tutorial’. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology 12 (3): 154–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Babcock, Laura, Mariagrazia Capizzi, Sandra Arbula, and Antonino Vallesi. 2017. ‘Short-Term Memory Improvement After Simultaneous Interpretation Training’. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement 1 (3): 254–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Babcock, Laura, and Antonino Vallesi. 2017. ‘Are Simultaneous Interpreters Expert Bilinguals, Unique Bilinguals, or Both?’ Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20 (2): 403–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cai, Rendong, Yanping Dong, Nan Zhao, and Jiexuan Lin. 2015. ‘Factors Contributing to Individual Differences in the Development of Consecutive Interpreting Competence for Beginner Student Interpreters’. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (1): 104–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheung, Mike W.-L. 2014. ‘Modeling Dependent Effect Sizes with Three-Level Meta-Analyses: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach’. Psychological Methods 19 (2): 211–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chmiel, Agnieszka. 2018. ‘In Search of the Working Memory Advantage in Conference Interpreting – Training, Experience and Task Effects’. The International Journal of Bilingualism; London 22 (3): 371–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christoffels, Ingrid K., Annette M. B. de Groot, and Judith F. Kroll. 2006. ‘Memory and Language Skills in Simultaneous Interpreters: The Role of Expertise and Language Proficiency’. Journal of Memory and Language 54 (3): 324–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Version 6.2. 2021. 6.2. [URL]
Cohen, Jacob. 1977. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cooper, Harris, Larry V. Hedges, and Jeffrey C. Valentine. 2009. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Desmet, Bart, Mieke Vandierendonck, and Bart Defrancq. 2018. ‘Simultaneous Interpretation of Numbers and the Impact of Technological Support’. In Interpreting and Technology, edited by Claudio Fantinuoli, 13–27. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, and Judy A. Siguaw. 2000. ‘Assessment of Model Fit’. In Introducing LISREL: A Guide for the Uninitiated, 82–100. London, UNITED KINGDOM: SAGE Publications. [URL].
Dong, Yanping, and Rendong Cai. 2015. ‘Working Memory in Interpreting: A Commentary on Theoretical Models’. In Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition and Processing, edited by Zhisheng (Edward) Wen, Borges Mailce Mota, and Arthur McNeill, 63–84. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dong, Yanping, and Yuhua Liu. 2016. ‘Classes in Translating and Interpreting Produce Differential Gains in Switching and Updating’. Frontiers in Psychology 71 (August). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dong, Yanping, Yuhua Liu, and Rendong Cai. 2018. ‘How Does Consecutive Interpreting Training Influence Working Memory: A Longitudinal Study of Potential Links Between the Two’. Frontiers in Psychology 91: 875. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duval, Sue, and Richard Tweedie. 2000. ‘Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel-Plot-Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis’. Biometrics 56 (2): 455–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Franco Aixelá, Javier. 2001. ‘BITRA (Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation). Open-Access Database.’ [URL]
García, Adolfo M. 2014. ‘The Interpreter Advantage Hypothesis: Preliminary Data Patterns and Empirically Motivated Questions’. Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association 9 (2): 219–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. ‘CIRIN Bulletin’. 2021. [URL]
Grundy, John G., and Kalinka Timmer. 2017. ‘Bilingualism and Working Memory Capacity: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis’. Second Language Research 33 (3): 325–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harrer, Mathias, Pim Cuijpers, Toshi A. Furukawa, and David D. Ebert. 2021. Doing Meta-Analysis with R: A Hands-On Guide. CRC Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hedges, Larry V. 1981. ‘Distribution Theory for Glass’s Estimator of Effect Size and Related Estimators’. Journal of Educational Statistics 6 (2): 107–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunter, John E., and Frank L. Schmidt. 1990. Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. ‘Fixed Effects vs. Random Effects Meta-Analysis Models: Implications for Cumulative Research Knowledge’. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 8 (4): 275–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Injoque-Ricle, Irene, Juan Pablo Barreyro, Jesica Formoso, and Virginia I. Jaichenco. 2015. ‘Expertise, Working Memory and Articulatory Suppression Effect: Their Relation with Simultaneous Interpreting Performance’. Advances in Cognitive Psychology 11 (2): 56–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jin, Ya-shyuan. 2010. ‘Is Working Memory Working in Consecutive Interpreting?’ The University of Edinburgh. [URL]
Kelley, Ken, and Kristopher J. Preacher. 2012. ‘On Effect Size’. Psychological Methods 17 (2): 137–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Köpke, Barbara, and Jean-Luc Nespoulous. 2006. ‘Working Memory Performance in Expert and Novice Interpreters’. Interpreting 8 (1): 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambert, Sylvie. 2004. ‘Shared Attention during Sight Translation, Sight Interpretation and Simultaneous Interpretation’. Meta : Journal Des Traducteurs / Meta: Translators’ Journal 49 (2): 294–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Minhua, Diane L. Schallert, and Patrick J. Carroll. 2004. ‘Working Memory and Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting’. Interpreting 6 (1): 19–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Logie, Robert, Valérie Camos, and Nelson Cowan, eds. 2021. Working Memory – State of the Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKenzie, Joanne E., and Sue E. Brennan. 2019. ‘Synthesizing and Presenting Findings Using Other Methods’. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 321–47. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson. 2019. ‘Meta-Analyses of Simultaneous Interpreting and Working Memory’. Interpreting 21 (2): 165–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. ‘Meta-Analysis and Replication in Interpreting Studies’. Interpreting 22 (1): 140–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morales, Julia, Francisca Padilla, Carlos J. Gómez-Ariza, and M. Teresa Bajo. 2015. ‘Simultaneous Interpretation Selectively Influences Working Memory and Attentional Networks’. Acta Psychologica 1551 (February): 82–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nour, Soudabeh, Esli Struys, and Helene Stengers. 2020a. ‘Adaptive Control in Interpreters: Assessing the Impact of Training and Experience on Working Memory’. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23 (4): 772–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nour, Soudabeh, Esli Struys, Evy Woumans, Ily Hollebeke, and Hélène Stengers. 2020b. ‘An Interpreter Advantage in Executive Functions?: A Systematic Review’. Interpreting 22 (2): 163–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olalla-Soler, Christian. 2020. ‘Practices and Attitudes toward Replication in Empirical Translation and Interpreting Studies’. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 32 (1): 3–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Page, Matthew J., Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, et al. 2021. ‘The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews’. BMJ 3721 (March): n71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, Denise C., Gary Lautenschlager, Trey Hedden, Natalie S. Davidson, Anderson D. Smith, and Pamela K. Smith. 2002. ‘Models of Visuospatial and Verbal Memory across the Adult Life Span’. Psychology and Aging 17 (2): 299–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pollet, Thomas. 2021. ‘Meta-Analysis Course (in R)’. 2021. [URL]
Raftery, Adrian E. 1995. ‘Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research’. Sociological Methodology 251 (January): 111–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosiers, Alexandra, Evy Woumans, Wouter Duyck, and June Eyckmans. 2019. ‘Investigating the Presumed Cognitive Advantage of Aspiring Interpreters’. Interpreting 21 (1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rothstein, Hannah R., Alexander J. Sutton, and Michael Borenstein. 2005. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis : Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. john Wiley & Sons. [URL].
RStudio, Team. 2021. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Boston: PBC. https://rstudio.com/.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmidt, Frank L., In-Sue Oh, and Theodore L. Hayes. 2009. ‘Fixed- versus Random-Effects Models in Meta-Analysis: Model Properties and an Empirical Comparison of Differences in Results’. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology 62 (1): 97–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Signorelli, Teresa M., Henk J. Haarmann, and Loraine K. Obler. 2011. ‘Working Memory in Simultaneous Interpreters: Effects of Task and Age’. International Journal of Bilingualism 16 (2): 198–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stavrakaki, Stavroula, Kalliopi Megari, Mary H. Kosmidis, Maria Apostolidou, and Eleni Takou. 2012. ‘Working Memory and Verbal Fluency in Simultaneous Interpreters’. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 34 (6): 624–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Timarová, Šárka, Ivana Čeňková, Reine Meylaerts, Erik Hertog, Arnaud Szmalec, and Wouter Duyck. 2014. ‘Simultaneous Interpreting and Working Memory Executive Control’. Interpreting 16 (2): 139–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. ‘Simultaneous Interpreting and Working Memory Capacity’. In Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting, edited by Aline Ferreira and John W. Schwieter, 1151:101–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tzou, Yeh-Zu, Zohreh R. Eslami, Hsin-Chin Chen, and Jyotsna Vaid. 2012. ‘Effect of Language Proficiency and Degree of Formal Training in Simultaneous Interpreting on Working Memory and Interpreting Performance: Evidence from Mandarin–English Speakers’. International Journal of Bilingualism 16 (2): 213–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ünlü, Elena Antonova, and Çiğdem Sağın Şimşek. 2018. ‘Testing the Impact of Formal Interpreting Training on Working Memory Capacity: Evidence from Turkish–English Students–Interpreters’. Lingua 2091 (July): 78–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van der Linden, Lize, Eowyn Van de Putte, Evy Woumans, Wouter Duyck, and Arnaud Szmalec. 2018. ‘Does Extreme Language Control Training Improve Cognitive Control? A Comparison of Professional Interpreters, L2 Teachers and Monolinguals’. Frontiers in Psychology 91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Viechtbauer, Wolfgang. 2005. ‘Bias and Efficiency of Meta-Analytic Variance Estimators in the Random-Effects Model’. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 30 (3): 261–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. ‘Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the Metafor Package’. Journal of Statistical Software 361 (August): 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wen, Hao, and Yanping Dong. 2019. ‘How Does Interpreting Experience Enhance Working Memory and Short-Term Memory: A Meta-Analysis’. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 31 (8): 769–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yudes, Carolina, Pedro Macizo, and Teresa Bajo. 2011. ‘The Influence of Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting on Non-Verbal Executive Processes’. Frontiers in Psychology 21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yudes, Carolina, Pedro Macizo, Luis Morales, and M. Teresa Bajo. 2013. ‘Comprehension and Error Monitoring in Simultaneous Interpreters’. Applied Psycholinguistics 34 (5): 1039–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Ghiselli, Serena, Mariachiara Russo & Carlo Tomasetto
2025. The effects of interpreting training on executive functions: A longitudinal study. Meta 69:2 ► pp. 380 ff. DOI logo
Han, Chao, Xiaolei Lu, Weiwei Wang & Shirong Chen
2025. Applying n-gram-based evaluation metrics to assess human interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting DOI logo
Han, Chao & Yueqing Wang
2025. Conducting replication in translation and interpreting studies. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 37:3 ► pp. 444 ff. DOI logo
Wen, Hao & Yanping Dong
2025. Language as a pathway to promote cognitive health in older adults: effects of Between-dialect Interpreting Training (BIT) on cognitive control. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Shuangshuang, Jan-Louis Kruger, Marc Orlando & Jennifer Batchelor
2025. Methods for exploring executive functions (EFs) in simultaneous interpreting (SI). Translation and Interpreting Studies 20:2 ► pp. 244 ff. DOI logo
Zhong, Fei & Yanping Dong
2024. ERP neural correlates of the interpreter advantage in coordination for interpreting students. Applied Psycholinguistics 45:5 ► pp. 897 ff. DOI logo
Zou, Deyan & Jiahao Guo
2024. Parallel translation process in consecutive interpreting: Differences between beginning and advanced interpreting students. Acta Psychologica 248 ► pp. 104358 ff. DOI logo
Elmer, Stefan & Nathalie Giroud
2023. Simultaneous interpreting, brain aging, and cognition. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 6:2 ► pp. 118 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue