Understanding AI interpreting in context A comprehension-based evaluation of human vs. machine-generated interpretations in a real-world setting.


Published: Jan 28, 2026
Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence (AI) machine interpreting Speech-to-Speech (S2S) translation comprehension test press conference
Kayo Matsushita
Abstract

The rise of AI in the interpreting industry poses pressing questions about the sustainability of interpreting as a profession. While commercial platforms promise real-time multilingual communication at scale, their functional effectiveness in high-stakes professional contexts remains underexplored. This study presents a comprehension-based evaluation comparing human and AI interpreting of a climate-related press conference. Following Reithofer’s (2013, 2014) methodology, 56 journalists were divided into two groups: one listening to professional human interpretation and the other to a cutting-edge AI service (KUDO AI Speech Translator). Results showed that the human group achieved higher comprehension scores (mean 4.5/10) than the AI group (mean 3.7/10), with the latter exhibiting a 17.9% “Don’t Know” rate. Qualitative feedback highlighted that AI’s lack of prosodic salience increased cognitive load, hindering deep information synthesis. These findings suggest that human intervention remains essential for ensuring semantic adequacy and effective information transfer in professional journalistic settings.

Article Details
  • Section
  • Articles
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Chafe, W. L. (ed.). (1980). The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Fantinuoli, C. (2025). Machine interpreting. In E. Davitti, T. Korybski & S. Braun (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, Technology and AI (pp. 209–228). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Hassan, H. et al. (2018). Achieving human parity on automatic Chinese to English news translation. arXiv. Retrieved 18/01/2026 from https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.05567
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
KUDO. (2025). KUDO AI Speech Translator. Retrieved 18/01/2026 from https://kudo.ai/solutions/kudo-ai-speech-translator/
Liu, M., Schallert, D.L. and Carroll, P.J. (2004) Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 6(1), 19–42.
Lu, X. & Fantinuoli, C. (2025). Machine and computer-assisted interpreting: Innovations in and implications for interpreting practice, pedagogy and research. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 24, 1-22. Retrieved 18/01/2026 from https://lans-tts.uantwerpen.be/index.php/LANS-TTS/article/view/869
Reithofer, K. (2013). Comparing modes of communication: The effect of English as a lingua franca vs. interpreting on information processing in conference situations. Interpreting, 15(1), 48–73.
Reithofer, K. (2014). Englisch als Lingua Franca und Dolmetschen: Ein Vergleich zweier Kommunikationsmodi unter dem Aspekt der Wirkungsäquivalenz. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.
Shafiei, S. (2024). A proposed analytic rubric for consecutive interpreting assessment: Implications for similar contexts. Language Testing in Asia, 14, Article 13.
Slator. (2024). Slator 2024 Interpreting Technology and AI Report. Retrieved 18/01/2026 from https://slator.com/2024-interpreting-technology-and-ai-report/
Stiell, S. (2024). Press Conference by Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved 18/01/2026 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGcQVmiE1Ec
Tomlinson, K., Jaffe, S., Wang, W., Counts, S. & Suri, S. (2025). Working with AI: Measuring the occupational implications of generative AI. arXiv. Retrieved 18/01/2026 from https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.07935