ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021
Differentiating Interpreting Types: Connecting Complex Networks to Cognitive Complexity.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of source language duration on note-decoding effectiveness in novice interpreters' consecutive interpreting.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Using the Complex Network Model to Associate Nutritional, Psychological, and Physical Parameters and Aspects of Sleep with Depression Symptoms.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Informativeness across Interpreting Types: Implications for Language Shifts under Cognitive Load.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Momentary engagement in simultaneous versus consecutive interpreting: through the lens of translanguaging and CDST.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Foreign language anxiety and dependency distance in English-Chinese interpretation classrooms.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
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
Prominent interpreting models have illustrated different processing mechanisms of simultaneous interpreting and consecutive interpreting. Although great efforts have been made, a macroscopic examination into interpreting outputs is sparse. Since complex network is a powerful and feasible tool to capture the holistic features of language, the present study adopts this novel approach to investigate different properties of syntactic dependency networks based on simultaneous interpreting and consecutive interpreting outputs. Our results show that consecutive interpreting networks demonstrate higher degrees, higher clustering coefficients, and a more important role of function words among the central vertices than simultaneous interpreting networks. These findings suggest a better connectivity, better transitivity, and a lower degree of vocabulary richness in consecutive interpreting outputs. Our research provides an integrative framework for the understanding of underlying mechanisms in diverse interpreting types.
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.