Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42798600›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Student-AI interaction in computer-assisted consecutive interpreting: patterns and performance.

Huolingxiao Kuang, Jingyi Li, Yu Weng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Huolingxiao KuangSchool of Foreign Languages, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China.
Jingyi LiDepartment of Language Science and Technology, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Yu WengDepartment of Language Science and Technology, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

behavioral patternscomputer-assisted consecutive interpretingmixed-methods studystudent-AI interactiontraining effects

Identifiers

PMID42798600
PMCPMC13612447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.