Interpreting expertise and mind: working memory and selective attention in conference interpreter training

This chapter deals with working memory (Baddeley and Hitch 1974; Baddeley 2000; Gerver 1975, 1976; Padilla Benítez 1995) and selective attention (Cowan 2000; Moser-Mercer 2005; Seeber 2011; Timarová et al. 2014, 2015) in interpreting. The research question delves into the cognitive aspects of interpreting, and it considers whether working memory and selective attention improve through interpreting exercise over time. The topic is investigated in an experimental study with the students of the two-year Master’s Degree in Interpreting of the Department of Interpreting and Translation of the University of Bologna. The study group includes 25 interpreting students, and the control group is composed of 19 translation students. Working memory was evaluated with the TOMAL (Tests of memory and learning) (Reynolds and Bigler 1995), which includes five tests of verbal memory, and an N-Back Task (Ragland et al. 2002; Jaeggi et al. 2010). Furthermore, three tests were used to measure selective attention: a dichotic listening test (Humes et al. 2006; Kidd and Humes 2015), a Flanker task (Weaver et al. 2013) and a Stroop task (Stroop 1935). Students took the same tests at the beginning of their Master’s degree, at the end of the first year and at the end of their Master’s course. The results were compared to identify trends and help assess the average time needed by interpreting trainees to develop their cognitive skills. Data analysis showed that in none of the tests interpreting students had a statistically significant advantage over translation students. This result seems to imply that the quantity of cognitive resources available is similar in the two groups.