ArticlePloS one2025
Exploring preparatory reading in bidirectional sight and written translation through clustering analysis of eye-tracking data.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reading to Translate or Translating to Read? Modeling Translators' Eye Movements with Multilingual Pre-Trained Models.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
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
Preparatory reading-the phase between a translator's initial reading of the source text and the production of the first word of the target text-remains underexplored despite its crucial role in both sight (SiT) and written translation (WT). This study examined preparatory reading patterns of 32 student translators, focusing on the effects of translation mode (SiT vs. WT) and direction (L1-to-L2 vs. L2-to-L1). Translators' attention allocation, cognitive effort, and reading speed were measured using preparatory reading duration, average fixation duration, and fixation rate (i.e., number of fixations per second) as key indicators. Using linear mixed-effect models, we quantified the effects of translation mode and direction on each measure. We then synthesized all three measures by employing unsupervised machine learning algorithms (i.e. k-means cluster analysis) to identify distinct reading patterns. These quantitative findings were further complemented by expert qualitative categorization of reading patterns, achieved through subjective coding of scanpaths and Translation Process Graphs. We found that translation mode played a primary role in shaping preparatory reading styles, with SiT consistently requiring greater cognitive effort, more attention, and slower reading speeds than WT-particularly under the L1-to-L2 condition. Translation direction further modulated these effects in nuanced ways. Specifically, L2-to-L1 was associated with increased attention allocation in WT, but with less cognitive effort and faster reading in SiT. Additionally, we found three distinct preparatory reading patterns: Fast Surface-level Preparatory Reading, Systematic Deep-level Preparatory Reading, and Extended Iterative Preparatory Reading, each reflecting a distinct combination of cognitive investment and reading speed. These findings could advance our understanding of translators' preparatory reading behaviors and underscore the need to equip them with adaptable, task-sensitive reading strategies that align with the cognitive demands of different translation modes and directions.
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.