This article uses risk communication theory and cognitive load theory to analyse the stress experienced by interpreters involved in crisis communication within Covid-19 medical scenarios. It considers the nature of stress both from psychological (mental) and physiological perspectives, exploring the relationship between the level of cognitive load, interpreters’ stress, and the quality of interpreting in crisis communication. This research identifies the strategies used by interpreters when operating in pandemic working environments and compares their cognitive load and physiological stress changes within and outside contexts of crisis communication. We hypothesize that interpreters experience greater psychological stress and an increased cognitive load which adversely affect their interpreting in crises compared to normal situations. To test this hypothesis, an experiment combined eye-tracking technology with Heart Rate and Galvanic Skin Response technology. 25 novice interpreters interpreted simulated medical scenarios for a Covid-19 patient and a diabetes patient respectively. This is one of the first studies to apply the multimodal approach of eye-tracking, HR, and GSR technology to record the physiological stress and mental status of interpreters. We advocate more systematic interdisciplinary research concerning interpreters’ stress in crisis communication, and outline recommendations for future crisis interpreting training and for individual professionals involved in crisis management.

This study examines how novice translators allocate cognitive resources during English-Chinese and Chinese-English translation, focusing on the influence of translation direction and the discrepancies between empirical data and self-reflections. Using a combination of eye-tracking and keystroke logging, four key indicators—Total Attentional Duration, Attention Unit Count, Attention Unit Duration, and pupil dilation—were employed to quantify cognitive effort. Cue-based Retrospective Think-Aloud Protocols were used to capture participants’ reflective insights. The findings reveal that cognitive effort varies significantly between attention types in both translation directions. Specifically, Target Text processing consistently demands more cognitive resources than Source Text processing and parallel processing, though variations between the two translation directions are evident. Furthermore, a notable divergence emerges between participants’ reflective accounts and the quantitative data, with translation directionality significantly influencing this discrepancy. These results contribute to a deeper understanding of cognitive effort in translation and highlight the complex interplay between empirical measures and self-reported experiences.