Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/119049
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorDepartment of Language Science and Technologyen_US
dc.creatorZhao, Hen_US
dc.creatorDong, Yen_US
dc.creatorChen, Xen_US
dc.date.accessioned2026-05-28T01:44:33Z-
dc.date.available2026-05-28T01:44:33Z-
dc.identifier.issn0911-6044en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10397/119049-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevier Ltden_US
dc.subjectERPen_US
dc.subjectInterference controlen_US
dc.subjectInterpreter advantageen_US
dc.subjectProcessing efficiencyen_US
dc.subjectStroop interferenceen_US
dc.titleEnhanced Stroop conflict resolution efficiency associated with interpreting training : evidence from ERPsen_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.volume78en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jneuroling.2026.101313en_US
dcterms.abstractInterpreting necessitates continuous resistance to source language interference in target language output, which parallels the cognitive demands in the Stroop task where participants must overcome automatic word reading to name ink colors. This parallel suggests that Stroop tasks may provide unique insights into the neurocognitive effects of interpreter training on interference control. Given that most behavioral studies examining interpreting effects using Stroop tasks have yielded null results, the more sensitive event-related potential (ERP) technique was employed in the present study. A group of interpreting trainees and their matched bilingual controls completed a color-word Stroop task while ERPs were recorded to assess conflict-specific processing (incongruent vs. congruent contrast) and processing efficiency (averaging across congruent and incongruent trials). We analyzed early attentional processing (N1), conflict monitoring (N2, N450), and conflict resolution components (P3, conflict SP), alongside error rates and response times (RTs). Compared with bilingual controls, interpreting trainees demonstrated enhanced conflict resolution efficiency (more positive overall P3 and conflict SP amplitude) despite reduced early attentional processing (less negative overall N1 amplitude). However, no interpreter advantage emerged in conflict monitoring (comparable N2 and N450 amplitude) or behavioral performance (comparable error rates/RTs). These findings suggest that interpreting training is associated with enhanced processing efficiency in managing Stroop interferences, most probably through target enhancement rather than active inhibition. This processing efficiency advantage converges with previous Flanker ERP findings despite with different temporal patterns, suggesting a distinctive characteristic of interpreter advantage. Future research should validate whether this efficiency advantage generalizes across various interference control paradigms.en_US
dcterms.accessRightsembargoed accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationJournal of neurolinguistics, May 2026, v. 78, 101313en_US
dcterms.isPartOfJournal of neurolinguisticsen_US
dcterms.issued2026-05-
dc.identifier.eissn1873-8052en_US
dc.identifier.artn101313en_US
dc.description.validate202605 bcchen_US
dc.description.oaNot applicableen_US
dc.identifier.FolderNumbera4443-
dc.identifier.SubFormID52792-
dc.description.fundingSourceOthersen_US
dc.description.fundingTextThe research was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (22BYY077). We would like to thank Dr. Fei Zhong for his help in data analysis, Yuchen Qin, Chen Chen and Wenzhen Zhu for their help in data collection.en_US
dc.description.pubStatusPublisheden_US
dc.date.embargo2028-05-31en_US
dc.description.oaCategoryGreen (AAM)en_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article
Open Access Information
Status embargoed access
Embargo End Date 2028-05-31
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.