Indices of cognitive effort in machine translation post-editing
Tóm tắt
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Aikawa T, Schwartz L, King R, Corston-Oliver M, Lozano C (2007) Impact of controlled language on translation quality and post-editing in a statistical machine translation environment. In: Maegaard B (ed) Proceedings of machine translation summit XI, October 2007, Copenhagen, pp 1–7
Aziz W, Castilho S, Specia L (2012) PET: a tool for post-editing and assessing machine translation. In: Calzolari N, Choukri K, Declerck T, Doğan MU, Maegaard B, Mariani J, Moreno A, Odijk J, Piperidis S (eds) Proceedings of LREC 2012 eighth international conference on language resources and evaluation, 21–27 May 2012. Istanbul, pp 3982–3987
Aziz W, Koponen M, Specia L (2014) Sub-sentence level analysis of machine translation post-editing effort. In: O’Brien S, Winther Balling L, Carl M, Simard M, Specia L (eds) Post-editing of machine translation: processes and applications. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp 170–199
Baayen RH (2008) Analysing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Baayen RH, Davidson DJ, Bates DM (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. J Mem Lang 59(4):390–412
Balling LW (2008) A brief introduction to regression designs and mixed-effects modelling by a recent convert. In: Göpferich S, Jakobsen AL, Mees IM (eds) Looking at eyes: eye tracking studies of reading and translation processing, Copenhagen Studies in Language vol 36, pp 175–192
Balling W, Baayen H (2008) Morphological effects in auditory word recognition: evidence from Danish. Lang Cognit Process 23(7–8):1159–1190. doi: 10.1080/01690960802201010
Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2013) Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0-5. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 . Accessed 10 Apr 2014
Bjornsson CH (1968) Lasbarhet [readability]. Bokförlaget Liber, Stockholm
Blatz J, Fitzgerald E, Foster G, Gandrabur S, Goutte C, Kulesza A, Sanchis A, Ueffing N (2004) Confidence estimation for machine translation. Proceedings of the 20th international conference on computational linguistics, 23–27 Aug 2004, Geneva, pp 315–321
Callison-Burch C, Fordyce C, Koehn P, Monz C, Schroeder J (2007) (Meta-)evaluation of machine translation. Proceedings of the second workshop on statistical machine translation, 23 June 2007, Prague, pp 136–158
Caplan D, Waters G (2003) The relationship between age, processing speed, working memory capacity, and language comprehension. Memory 13(3–4):403–413. doi: 10.1080/09658210344000459
Carl M, Dragsted B, Elming J, Hardt D, Jakobsen AL (2011) The process of post-editing: a pilot study. In: Sharp B, Zock M, Carl M, Jakobsen AL (eds) Proceedings of the 8th international NLPCS workshop. Special theme: human-machine interaction in translation. Copenhagen studies in language, vol 41, 20–21 August 2011, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp 131–142
Carl M, Kay M (2011) Gazing and typing activities during translation: a comparative study of translation units of professional and student translators. Meta 56(4):952–975. doi: 10.7202/1011262ar
Christensen RHB (2010) ordinal–Regression models for ordinal data R package version 2013.9-30 http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal/ . Accessed 10 Apr 2014
Cohen J (1968) Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70(4):213–220
De Almeida G (2013) Translating the post-editor: an investigation of post-editing changes and correlations with professional experience. Dissertation, Dublin City University, Dublin
Denkowski M, Lavie A (2011) Meteor 1.3: automatic metric for reliable optimization and evaluation of machine translation systems. In: Proceedings of the sixth workshop on statistical machine translation, 30–31 July 2011, Edinburgh, pp 85–91
DeStefano D, LeFevre J-A (2007) Cognitive load in hypertext reading: a review. Comput Hum Behav 23(3):1616–1641. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2005.08.012
Doherty S, O’Brien S, Carl M (2010) Eye tracking as an MT evaluation technique. Mach Transl 24(1):1–13
Gamer M, Lemon J, Singh IFP (2012) irr: various coefficients of interrater reliability and agreement. R package version 0.84. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=irr . Accessed 25 Apr 2014
Graesser AC, McNamara DS, Louwerse MM, Cai Z (2004) Coh-Metrix: analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 36(2):193–202. doi: 10.3758/BF03195564
Graesser AC, McNamara DS (2011) Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Top Cognit Sci 3(2):371–398. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01081.x
Green S, de Marneffe M-C, Bauer J, Manning CD (2011) Multiword expression identification with tree substitution grammars: a parsing tour de force with French. In: Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 27–31 July 2011, Edinburgh, pp 725–735
Green S, Heer J, Manning CD (2013) The efficacy of human post-editing for language translation. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 27 Apr–2 May 2013, Paris, pp 439–448
Guerberof A (2014) The role of professional experience in post-editing from a quality and productivity perspective. In: O’Brien S, Winther Balling L, Carl M, Specia L (eds) Post-editing of machine translation: processes and applications. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp 51–76
Hamilton P (1979) Process entropy and cognitive control: mental load in internalized thought processes. In: Moray N (ed) Mental workload: its theory and measurement. Plenum Press, New York, pp 289–298
Holmqvist K, Nyström M, Andersson R, Dewhurst R, Jarodzka H, Van de Weijer J (2011) Eye tracking: a comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hvelplund KT (2011) Allocation of cognitive resources in translation: An eye-tracking and key-logging study. Dissertation, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen
Jakobsen AL (2003) Effects of think aloud on translation speed, revision and segmentation. In: Alves F (ed) Triangulating translation. perspectives in process oriented research. Benjamins Translation Library, vol 45. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 69–95
Jensen KTH (2009) Indicators of text complexity. In: Göpferich S, Jakobsen AL, Mees IM (eds) Behind the mind: methods, models and results in translation process research. Copenhagen Studies in Language vol 36. Samfundslitteratur, Copenhagen, pp 61–80
Jones G (2000) Compiling french word frequency lists for the VAT: a feasibility study. http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/fr/ . Accessed 20 Dec 2013
Kandel L, Moles A (1958) Application de l’indice de Flesch à la langue française. Cahiers Etudes de Radio-Télévision 19:253–274
Koponen M (2012) Comparing human perceptions of post-editing effort with post-editing operations. In: Proceedings of the 7th workshop on statistical machine translation, 7–8 June 2012, Montreal, pp 181–190
Koponen M, Aziz W, Ramos L, Specia L (2012) Post-editing time as a measure of cognitive effort. In: O’Brien S, Simard M, Specia L (eds) Proceedings of the AMTA 2012 Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice (WPTP 2012), San Diego, 28 Oct 2012
Krings HP (2001) Repairing texts: empirical investigations of machine translation post-editing processes. Kent State University Press, Kent
Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen R (2013) lmerTest: tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R package version 2.0-0. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=lmerTest . Accessed 10 Apr 2014
Lacruz L, Shreve GM (2014) Pauses and cognitive effort in post-editing. In: O’Brien S, Winther Balling L, Carl M, Simard M, Specia L (eds) Post-editing of machine translation: processes and applications. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp 246–272
LDC (2005) Linguistic data annotation specification: assessment of fluency and adequacy in translations. Revision 1.5
McCutchen D (1996) A capacity theory of writing: working memory in composition. Educ Psychol Rev 8:299–325. doi: 10.1007/BF01464076
Mitchell L, Roturier J, O’Brien S (2013) Community-based post-editing of machine-translated content: monolingual vs. bilingual. In: O’Brien S, Simard M, Specia L (eds) Proceedings of machine tranlation summit XIV Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (WPTP2), 2 Sept 2013, Nice, pp 35–43
O’Brien S (2004) Machine translatability and post-editing effort: How do they relate. In: Translating and the Computer 26, November 2004, Aslib, London
O’Brien S (2005) Methodologies for measuring the correlations between post-editing effort and machine translatability. Mach Transl 19(1):37–58. doi: 10.1007/s10590-005-2467-1
O’Brien S (2006a) Pauses as indicators of cognitive effort in post-editing machine translation output. Across Lang Cult 7(1):1–21. doi: 10.1556/Acr.7.2006.1.1
O’Brien S (2006b) Controlled language and post-editing. MultiLingual, October/November issue, pp 17–19
O’Brien S (2011) Towards predicting post-editing productivity. MachTransl 25(3):197–215. doi: 10.1007/s10590-011-9096-7
Paas F (1992) Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: a cognitive-load approach. J Educ Psychol 84(4):429–434
Paas F, Van Merriënboer JJG (1994) Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: a cognitive-load approach. J Educ Psychol 86(1):122–133
Paas F, Tuovinen JE, Tabbers H, Van Gerven PWM (2003) Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educ Psychologist 38(1):63–71
Plitt M, Masselot F (2010) A productivity test of statistical machine translation post-editing in a typical localization context. Prague Bull Math Linguist 93:7–16
Rayner K (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull 124(3):372
Read J (2007) Second language vocabulary assessment: current practices and new directions. Int J Engl Stud 7(2):105–125
Redick TS, Broadway JM, Meier ME, Kuriakose PS, Unsworth N, Kane MJ, Engle RW (2012) Measuring working memory capacity with automated complex span tasks. Eur J Psychol Assess 28(3):164
Roodenrys K, Agostinho S, Roodenrys S, Chandler P (2012) Managing one’s own cognitive load when evidence of split attention is present. Appl Cognit Psychol 26(6):878–886. doi: 10.1002/acp.2889
Sanders AF (1979) Some remarks on mental workload. In: Moray N (ed) Mental workload: its theory and measurement. Plenum Press, New York, pp 41–77
Snijders T, Bosker R (1999) Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
Snover M, Dorr B, Schwartz R, Micciulla L, Makhoul J (2006) A study of translation edit rate with targeted human annotation. In: Proceedings of the 7th conference of the association for machine translation of the Americas 2006, 8–12 Aug 2006, Cambridge, pp 223–231
Specia L (2011) Exploiting objective annotations for measuring translation post-editing effort. In: Forcada ML, Depraetere H, Vandeghinste V (eds) Proceedings of the 15th international conference of the European association for machine translation, 30–31 May 2011, Leuven, pp 73–80
Specia L, Shah K (2013) Deliverable D2. 1.1 Quality estimation baseline software. http://www.qt21.eu/launchpad/content/delivered . Accessed 7 May 2014
Specia L, Turchi M, Cancedda N, Dymetman M, Cristianini N (2009) Estimating the sentence-level quality of machine translation systems. In: Màrques L, Somers H (eds) Proceedings of the 13th annual conference of the European association for machine translation, 14–15 May 2009, Barcelona pp 28–37
Specia L, Raj D, Turchi M (2010) Machine translation evaluation versus quality estimation. Mach Transl 24(1):39–50
Tabbers HK, Martens RL, Van Merriënboer JJG (2004) Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: effects of modality and cueing. Br J Educ Psychol 74(1):71–81. doi: 10.1348/000709904322848824
Tatsumi M (2009) Correlation between automatic evaluation scores, post-editing speed and some other factors. In: Proceedings of MT summit XII the twelfth machine yranslation summit, 26–30 Aug 2009, Ottawa, pp 332–339
Tatsumi M (2010) Post-editing machine translated text in a commercial setting: Observation and statistical analysis. Dissertation, Dublin City University, Dublin
TAUS (2010) Machine translation post-editing guidelines. TAUS. https://evaluation.taus.net/resources/guidelines/post-editing/machine-translation-post-editing-guidelines . Accessed 11 Apr 2014
TAUS (2013) Pricing machine translation post-editing guidelines. TAUS. https://evaluation.taus.net/resources-c/pricing-machine-translation-post-editing-guidelines . Accessed 18 Jan 2014
Temnikova I (2010) A cognitive evaluation approach for a controlled language post-editing experiment. In: Calzolari N, Choukri K, Maegaard B, Mariani J, Odijk J, Piperidis S, Rosner M, Tapias D (eds) Proceedings of LREC 2010 seventh international conference on language resources and evaluation, 19–21 May 2010, Valetta, pp 3485–3490
Tobii Technology (2012) Determining the Tobii I-VT fixation filter’s default values: method description and results discussion. Tobii Technology. http://www.tobii.com/Global/Analysis/Training/WhitePapers/Tobii_WhitePaper_DeterminingtheTobiiI-VTFixationFilter’sDefaultValues.pdf . Accessed 20 Dec 2013
Toglia MP, Battig WF (1978) Handbook of semantic word norms. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Tyler SW, Hertel PT, McCallum MC, Hellis HC (1979) Cognitive effort and memory. J Exp Psychol 5(6):607–617
Underwood N, Jongejan B (2001) Translatability checker: A tool to help decide whether to use MT. In: Maegaard B (ed) Proceedings of MT summit VIII machine translation in the information age, 18–22 Sept 2001, Santiago de Compostela, pp 363–368
Unsworth N, Heitz RP, Schrock JC, Engle RW (2005) An automated version of the operation span task. Behav Res Methods 37(3):498–505
Unsworth N, Redick TS, Heitz RP, Broadway JM, Engle RW (2009) Complex working memory span tasks and higher-order cognition: a latent-variable analysis of the relationship between processing and storage. Memory 17(6):635–654
Van Gog T, Kester L, Nievelstein F, Giesbers B, Paas F (2009) Uncovering cognitive processes: different techniques that can contribute to cognitive load research and instruction. Comput Hum Behav 25(2):325–331. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.021