ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Student-AI interaction in computer-assisted consecutive interpreting: patterns and performance.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
While student-AI interaction patterns have been explored in self-paced cross-linguistic tasks such as L2 writing and translation post-editing, little is known about how students interact with AI in bilingual tasks under intense cognitive and temporal constraints. This study uses computer-assisted consecutive interpreting (CACI) as a window to examine student-AI interaction patterns in such high-stakes environments. Twenty-two Chinese-native interpreting trainees, grouped by prior AI training experience, performed bidirectional CACI tasks using AI-enabled systems integrating automatic speech recognition (ASR) and machine translation (MT) features. With data collected from eye-tracking, pen-recording, and voice-recording, the study reveals that: (a) four interpretable interaction profiles emerge: Intensive Engagers (heavy AI reliance), Fast Scanners (scanning-based processing), Traditionalists (minimal AI reliance), and Frequent Switchers (shifts between AI support and handwritten notes); (b) these patterns shift dynamically between the comprehension and production stages of interpreting, while targeted CACI training was associated with more stable, AI-oriented patterns; and (c) students' interaction patterns during the comprehension stage, but not the production stage, are significantly associated with performance quality. These findings highlight the heterogeneity and variability of student-AI interaction patterns across different stages of complex bilingual tasks and underscore training effects on shaping students' behaviors and performance.
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.