ArticlePloS one2023
Speech errors in consecutive interpreting: Effects of language proficiency, working memory, and anxiety.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on dual-task sensor-based motion analysis for dementia detection.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Language switching ability and executive function development in English learners: a longitudinal investigation of bilingual cognitive control.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- An experimental study of the effect of anxiety on lexical processing of college students: evidence from true-false word judgment and semantic category judgment tasks.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Lost in translation: Decoding the errors in consecutive interpreting by Chinese EFL learners.PloS one · 2025Article
- Speech Disfluencies in Consecutive Interpreting by Student Interpreters: The Role of Language Proficiency, Working Memory, and Anxiety.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
Interpreting can be seen as a form of language production, where interpreters extract conceptual information from the source language and express it in the target language. Hence, like language production, interpreting contains speech errors at various (e.g., conceptual, syntactic, lexical and phonological) levels. The current study delved into the impact of language proficiency, working memory, and anxiety on the occurrence of speech errors across these linguistic strata during consecutive interpreting from English (a second language) into Chinese (a first language) by student interpreters. We showed that speech errors in general decreased as a function of the interpreter's proficiency in the source (second) language and increased as a function of the interpreter's anxiety. Conceptual errors, which result from mistaken comprehension of the source language, decreased as a function of language proficiency and working memory. Lexical errors increased as a function of the interpreter's tendency of anxiety. Syntactic errors also decreased as a function of language proficiency and increased as a function of anxiety. Phonological errors were not sensitive to any of the three cognitive traits. We discussed implications for the cognitive processes underlying interpreting and for interpreting training.
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.