ArticleFrontiers in psychology2018
How Does Consecutive Interpreting Training Influence Working Memory: A Longitudinal Study of Potential Links Between the Two.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Working memory exertion after simultaneous interpreting in bilinguals.Bilingualism (Cambridge, England) · 2026Article
- Pauses, silences, and cognitive control: psycholinguistic markers of speech planning in interpreter training.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Effects of Core Executive Function Training on Student Interpreters' Consecutive Interpreting.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Impact of Interpreting Training Experience on the Attentional Networks and Their Dynamics.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Effects of executive functions on consecutive interpreting for Chinese-Japanese unbalanced bilinguals.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Momentary engagement in simultaneous versus consecutive interpreting: through the lens of translanguaging and CDST.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Language aptitude in the visuospatial modality: L2 British Sign Language acquisition and cognitive skills in British Sign Language-English interpreting students.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- A Synthetic Review of Cognitive Load in Distance Interpreting: Toward an Explanatory Model.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Review
- Normed dataset for novel metaphors, novel similes, literal and anomalous sentences in Chinese.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Discourse-Level Information Recall in Early and Late Bilinguals: Evidence From Single-Language and Cross-Linguistic Tasks.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Cognitive and Neurocognitive Effects From the Unique Bilingual Experiences of Interpreters.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- The Predicting Power of Cognitive Fluency for the Development of Utterance Fluency in Simultaneous Interpreting.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Quantifying Interpreting Types: Language Sequence Mirrors Cognitive Load Minimization in Interpreting Tasks.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
- Predicting Fluency With Language Proficiency, Working Memory, and Directionality in Simultaneous Interpreting.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With an intention to contribute to the issue of how language experience may influence working memory (WM), we focused on consecutive interpreting (CI), analyzed its potential links with WM functions and tested these links in a longitudinal experiment, trying to answer the specific question of how CI training may influence WM. Two comparable groups of Chinese learners of English received either CI or general second language (L2) training for one semester, and were tested before and after the training with the tasks of n-back (non-verbal updating), L2 listening span, and letter running span (verbal spans). CI performance was tested in the posttest. The results showed that (1) updating efficiency in both the pretest and posttest predicted CI performance, and CI training enhanced updating efficiency while general L2 training did not; (2) the relationship between verbal spans and CI performance was weaker (i.e., only pretest L2 listening span correlated with CI performance and predicted CI performance with marginal significance), and CI training did not make a unique contribution to these spans (i.e., no group differences). The results indicated an "interpreter advantage" in updating, which was probably due to that updating was more central in the CI task than WM spans. Theoretically, we believe that updating and CI are closely related because they share the same underlying mechanism, or more specifically updating and the recalling process in the CI task share the same attentional control process, a unique link between updating and the CI task. Methodological implications are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.