Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Defining maximum acceptable latency of AI-enhanced CAI tools

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2201.02792 v1 pith:BVKUCGLD submitted 2022-01-08 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords latencytoolsinterpreterssystemacceptableexperimentmaximumresults
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent years have seen an increasing number of studies around the design of computer-assisted interpreting tools with integrated automatic speech processing and their use by trainees and professional interpreters. This paper discusses the role of system latency of such tools and presents the results of an experiment designed to investigate the maximum system latency that is cognitively acceptable for interpreters working in the simultaneous modality. The results show that interpreters can cope with a system latency of 3 seconds without any major impact in the rendition of the original text, both in terms of accuracy and fluency. This value is above the typical latency of available AI-based CAI tools and paves the way to experiment with larger context-based language models and higher latencies.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Integrating automatic speech recognition into remote healthcare interpreting: A pilot study of its impact on interpreting quality

    cs.CL 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a four-participant pilot, full ASR transcripts and ASR-fed ChatGPT summaries significantly improved trainee interpreters' quality scores in simulated remote healthcare consultations, but partial ASR support did not.

Pith tools