ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
Is machine translation a dim technology for its users? An eye tracking study.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining cognitive load in human-machine collaborative translation: insights from eye-tracking experiments of Chinese-English translation.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Machine translation: Turkish-English bilingual speakers' accuracy detection of evidentiality and preference of MT.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
State-of-the-art research shows that the impact of language technologies on public awareness and attitudes toward using machine translation has been changing. As machine translation acceptability is considered to be a multilayered concept, this paper employs criteria of usability, satisfaction and quality as components of acceptability measurement. The study seeks to determine whether there are any differences in the machine-translation acceptability between professional users, i.e., translators and language editors, and non-professional users, i.e., ordinary users of machine translation who use it for non-professional everyday purposes. The main research questions whether non-professional users process raw machine translation output in the same way as professional users and whether there is a difference in the processing of raw machine-translated output between users with different levels of machine-translated text acceptability are analyzed. The results of an eye tracking experiment, measuring fixation time, dwell time and glance count, indicate a difference between professional and non-professional users' cognitive processing and acceptability of machine translation output: translators and language editors spend more time overall reading the machine-translated texts, possibly because of their deeper critical awareness as well as professional attitude toward the text. In terms of acceptability overall, professional translators critically assess machine translation on all components of which confirms the findings of previous similar research. However, the study draws attention to non-professional users' lower awareness regarding machine translation quality. The study was conducted within a research project that received funding from the Research Council of Lithuania (LMTLT, agreement No S-MOD-21-2), seeking to explore and evaluate the impact on society of machine translation technological solutions.
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.