Pupil Dilation as a Measure of Processing Load in Simultaneous Interpretation and Other Language Tasks

The present study tested whether the pupillary response can be applied to study the variation in processing load during simultaneous interpretation. In Experiment 1, the global processing load in simultaneous interpretation as reflected in the average pupil size was compared to that in two other language tasks, listening to and repeating back an auditorily presented text. Experiment 1 showed clear differences between the experimental tasks. In Experiment 2, the task effect was replicated using single words as stimuli. Experiment 2 showed that momentary variations in processing load during a lexical translation task are reflected in pupil size. Words that were chosen to be more difficult to translate induced higher levels of pupil dilation than did easily translatable words. Moreover, repeating back words in a non-native language was accompanied by increased pupil dilations, in comparison to repetition in the subject's native language. In sum, the study lends good support to the use of the pupillary response as an indicator of processing load.

[1]  E. Hess,et al.  Pupil Size in Relation to Mental Activity during Simple Problem-Solving , 1964, Science.

[2]  D Kahneman,et al.  Pupil Diameter and Load on Memory , 1966, Science.

[3]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Effects of Grouping on the Pupillary Response in a Short-Term Memory Task , 1968, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Evidence for Alternative Strategies of Sentence Retention , 1971, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  M. Holland,et al.  Blinking and Mental Load , 1972, Psychological reports.

[6]  H. Barik.  Simultaneous Interpretation: Temporal and Quantitative Data , 1973, Language and speech.

[7]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Attention and Effort , 1973 .

[8]  E. Hess,et al.  Pupillometry: The Psychology of the Pupillary Response , 1978 .

[9]  J. Beatty,et al.  Pupillary responses during information processing vary with Scholastic Aptitude Test scores. , 1979, Science.

[10]  L. Manelis,et al.  Effect of Awareness on an Indicator of Cognitive Load , 1979 .

[11]  J. Beatty.  Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. , 1982 .

[12]  J. Antikainen,et al.  Neuroticism and the pupillary response to a brief exposure to noise , 1983, Biological Psychology.

[13]  W. Dixon,et al.  BMDP statistical software , 1983 .

[14]  S. Johansson,et al.  Word Frequencies in British and American English , 1985 .

[15]  J. Beatty,et al.  Contrasting effects of response uncertainty on the task-evoked pupillary response and reaction time. , 1987, Psychophysiology.

[16]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Linguistic Structure in Language Processing , 1988 .

[17]  K. Rayner,et al.  The psychology of reading , 1989 .

[18]  G. Matthews,et al.  Pupillary diameter and cognitive load. , 1991 .

[19]  M. Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1992 A capacity theory of comprehension : Individual differences in working memory , 2017 .

[20]  L. Walrath,et al.  Eye movement and pupillary response indices of mental workload during visual search of symbolic displays. , 1992, Applied ergonomics.

[21]  W. Levelt,et al.  Pupillary dilation as a measure of attention: a quantitative system analysis , 1993 .

[22]  M. Just,et al.  The intensity dimension of thought: pupillometric indices of sentence processing. , 1993, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.