JAIS

論文

Consecutive vs. Simultaneous: Which is more accurate?
Daniel Gile
Université Lumière Lyon 2
The relative accuracy of simultaneous vs. consecutive interpreting with respect tospecific difficulties (false starts, incomplete sentences, unimportant modifiers, elements
without direct “equivalents” in the target language, digressions) predicted by the Effort
Models was partially assessed by a comparison of simultaneous and consecutive renderingsof the same English speech into French by 10 interpreters in each mode. As predicted,
consecutive was found superior in incomplete sentences, and simultaneous was
superior as regards digressions and unimportant modifiers. With respect to overall
accuracy, simultaneous was clearly superior to consecutive in this study, but
methodological considerations call for caution when generalizing.

1.

Introduction

In the common wisdom shared by the interpreting community, a number of ideas
seem reasonable enough, but deserve closer scrutiny. One of them states thatconsecutive interpreting is more accurate and faithful than simultaneous interpreting(see, for instance, Van Hoof, 1962:36; Longley, 1968:10; Weber, 1989:162). Indeed, inthe consecutive mode, interpreters have the possibility of listening to and assimilating
the linguistically completed expression of ideas or sequences of ideas before starting
to produce their own speech, whereas in simultaneous, they cannot afford to lag
behind the speaker and therefore must often start their rendition into the target
language on the basis of a shorter, not fully digested source-speech segment. This
makes them more vulnerable to false starts, and to clumsy and ambiguous sentencesby the speaker. On the other hand, in informal conversations between interpreters,
one often hears that certain speeches are too fast for consecutive, but “feasible” inDaniel Gile, “Consecutive vs. Simultaneous: Which is more accurate?”
Interpretation Studies, No. 1, December 2001, pages 8-20.
(c) 2001 by the Japan Association for Interpretation Studies

8

simultaneous, which suggests that at least in some cases, simultaneous may be moreaccurate than consecutive. The following is a small-scale study which looks moreclosely at this issue, both in theoretical and in empirical terms.

2.

Potential error triggers in simultaneous and consecutive
This theoretical section compares simultaneous and consecutive in terms of

cognitive load and the resulting likelihood of errors on the basis of the Effort Models,a set of Models which look at interpreting as a cognitive management problem, firstdeveloped for didactic purposes in the early 80s, and taken further since. A
descrip-tion of an early theoretical foundation of the Models can be found in Mizuno(2000). The details of this foundation have become obsolete in view of advances incognitive psychology, but the dynamic principles, in particular the idea of alimitation in attentional resources and of management principles as explained below,
seem to remain unchallenged and actually be endorsed by cognitive psychologists(see, for example, De Bot, 2000; De Groot, 2000). For a more up-to-date version of theModels, see Gile (1999b).
The Effort Models pool together the operations of simultaneous interpreting intoaListeningandAnalysis

EffortLA(requiredforcomprehension

of

the

source-language speech), a Production Effort P (which corresponds to the productionof the target-language speech), and a short-term Memory Effort M, all three of which
require processing capacity.

In consecutive interpreting, there are two phases. The

first, during which the interpreter listens and takes notes, is similar to simultaneouswith the proviso that the Production Effort is devoted to producing notes, not atarget speech. During the second phase, the interpreter is no longer paced by the
speaker, but produces the target speech, and his/her Efforts are a Note-Reading
Effort, a long-term Memory Effort for reconstructing the speech, and a target-speech
Production Effort. The Models also postulate that in simultaneous and during thefirst phase of consecutive, interpreters work close to their maximum capacity (thetightrope hypothesis), meaning that any increase in processing capacity requirements
linked to source-speech features and any error in the way they manage available
capacity (for instance by devoting too much capacity to Production and leaving too
little for the Listening and Analysis Effort) is likely to lead to saturation-based errors.
This tightrope hypothesis was tested for simultaneous interpreting in a recent study(Gile, 1999b). In this study, when interpreting the same text, subjects tended to makeerrors and omissions in different speech segments rather than in the same, and wheninterpreting the same speech a second time, some subjects made errors which they9

had not made during their initial interpretation; both results are in line with the
hypothesis that cognitive saturation and cognitive management problems are
involved rather than the translation difficulty of specific segments.
While the Effort Models are holistic (as opposed to other information-processing
models as described in Mizuno, 2000), they can help generate testable hypotheses(see for instance Dawrant, 1996, on the effect of word-order difference inChinese-into-English interpretation, and Mazza, 2000, on the processing of numbers).
One line of reasoning starts with the tightrope hypothesis: assuming that interpretersare (if only subconsciously) aware that their processing capacity is stretched to thelimit, they are likely to adopt on-line strategies which reduce cognitive load and maylead to some loss of information. Such loss of information may also occur
preferentially in either consecutive or simultaneous interpreting for reasons
independent of the interpreter’s strategies. In particular, the following hypotheses
about problem triggers in the context of the cognitive load in simultaneous vs.
consecutive interpreting can be listed.
2.1

Problems hypothesized to occur in simultaneous more than in consecutive

interpreting
1.

Interpreters may wish to reduce the EVS (Ear-Voice Span, i.e. the lag in theirtarget-speech production behind the speaker) so as to avoid overloading theirworking memory. This is likely to generate problems when the speaker makes false
starts, as they may tend to start to translate them before having time to analyze themthrough and identify them as false starts. More generally, problems are likely to be
more numerous in simultaneous than in consecutive when sentences are difficult toanticipate (for instance when working from German or Japanese): in consecutive,
there is no need to start reformulating before the source-language statement is fully
processed.
2.

Interpreters are more likely to leave out a word or expression with noimmediate target-language equivalent or with equivalents requiring the constructionof multi-word structures, for fear of missing a more important source-speechsegment (see the principle of least interference in the chapter on strategies in Gile,
1995a). In the Japanese-into-English combination, they are more likely to leave out
large numbers (above 10,000) and dates (when the speaker uses the Japanesecalendar), because the required transformation (from man and oku units to theWestern system in the case of numbers, and from showa, heisei, etc. to the Western
systems in the case of dates) also puts a heavy load on their attentional resources10

(see Mazza, 2000, for a recent empirical study quantifying the difficulty ininterpreting numbers). In consecutive, there should be no such problem, because
they can take down the information, and only do the interlingual processing during
the second stage, when the cognitive load is far smaller (Gile, 1995a).
3.

They are likely to miss partially or completely multi-word names requiring

word-order changes, because such changes impose a heavy load on working memory
and take time, thus increasing the subsequent processing capacity load for
produc-tion. In consecutive, interpreters can take down the names in the order of thesource language and take care of word-order changes during the reformulation
phase. On the other hand, in consecutive, writing multi-word names causes longer
lag behind the speaker which interpreters may want to avoid because these might leadto memory overload. They may therefore decide to give priority to neighboring
segments, and note only partially, or not at all, multi-word names, which could leadto an error and omission rate similar to, or even higher than, in simultaneous. The
difference “in favor” of consecutive may therefore be found in multi-word names
which can be easily abbreviated in notes, for instance those made up of components
such as “Association,” “International,” “Organization,” etc. More generally, theword-order effect (found in Dawrant, 1996, though not in Setton, 1999, in which thedesign was probably too loose to detect anything but very strong effects) is likely to
be associated with more errors and omissions in simultaneous than in consecutive.
4.

Interpreters are more likely to leave out or interpret incorrectly incomplete or

ambiguous segments in the beginning of sentences. In consecutive, the context will
disambiguate them before the interpreter has to reformulate them.
5.

Generally, language differences and cultural differences requiring muchdecision-making should lead to more errors and omissions in simultaneous than inconsecutive, where the added cognitive load associated with the decision-making in
the production of the target-language speech only occurs during the second phase ofinterpreting, and thus does not contribute to saturation during the Listening andAnalysis phase. Such language differences include decisions on the appropriate levelof politeness or formality, on the identity of the subject of a verb, on the distinction
between a probability and a future tense, on the gender of a person (san vs. Mr. orMrs.), on the relative social status of a person referred to, to take but a few examples
from the Japanese-English combination.
2.2

Problems hypothesized to occur in consecutive more than in simultaneousinterpreting116.

In consecutive interpreting, just as in simultaneous and for similar reasons(Gile, 1995a), interpreters may also wish to reduce the lag behind the speaker, but
the effect on errors and omissions may be different.

In particular, they may decide

not to note some speech elements which they view as unimportant but which take along time to note (writing without abbreviating is often 5 to 10 times longer thanarticu-lating the same words), such as relatively unimportant modifiers anddigressions (comments made and information given outside the speaker’s main lineof reasoning). If they are not noted, there is a higher risk that they will be omitted
during the reformulation phase. Note that in simultaneous, such unimportant speechelements can be reformulated at the speed of vocal articulation, so that theirsaturation-generating role may be less significant than in consecutive, hence a
possibly weaker tendency to leave them out.
7.

In consecutive, enumerations may be rendered more incorrectly than insimultaneous because of the time lag associated with the slowness of writing (ascompared to speaking), which will tend to overload working memory.
The hypotheses explained above predict that consecutive will be more accurate insome cases, and simultaneous in others. Without further quantitative indications,they do not predict an “overall” better accuracy in consecutive or in simultaneous. It
is therefore tempting not only to test these hypotheses, but also to check whether
there is such an “overall” superiority of consecutive over simultaneous.

3.

General methodological issues
Testing these hypotheses in a naturalistic setting is made difficult by two factors.

The first is variability, in particular as regards the interpreters’ cognitive skills,
personality and personal “style” (inter alia as regards EVS preferences, resistance tostress, working memory capacity, willingness to take risks by anticipating, preferred
vocabulary and syntax). An interesting discussion regarding the variability of“personal style” can be found in Shlesinger (2000); more specific indications ofvariability in fidelity and in basic vocabulary (where it was surprisingly large) were
found in Lamberger-Felber (1998). Another methodological difficulty is variability inthe informational density of the sentences around the potentially problematic
segments: if a false start, a word with no obvious target-language equivalent or
another problem trigger is followed by a segment with low informational density,
the interpreter is no longer under heavy cognitive load and the trigger loses its
distur-bance potential. A significant effect may nevertheless be found in large
samples, where large-scale random effects even out such variations. However, it is a12well known fact, often mentioned in the literature, that access to interpreters forexperiments is difficult. On the other hand, constructing speeches for laboratory
experiments with a strict control of relevant variable entails a risk of jeopardizing
ecological validity. It therefore makes sense to start with preliminary explorations ofauthentic speeches, to see whether some effects are salient enough to be detected inspite of the variability, and then check whether the less obvious effects can bedetected in experimental settings. The experiment described below is such apreliminary exploration using an authentic speech, in this case an extract from apress conference with the (then) newly appointed President of Kodak, George Fisher(the speech is presented in Table 1 as segmented for the purposes of the experiment,
as well as in the appendix, for the convenience of readers).
The source speech, as well as all the target speeches obtained in the simultaneousmode, are taken from another study which tested the tightrope hypothesis (Gile,
1999b). This is one way of obtaining a relatively large sample (20 professional
interpreters) at a relatively low added “cost”: no new speech was required, and only
10 new interpreters had to be enlisted for a total sample of 20 participants. Anotheradvantage of this approach is the possibility of using a speech which has alreadybeen found adequate for the relevant experimental use: some speeches may be too“easy” insofar as they do not generate enough problems to serve as material for
inferencing, while others may be too difficult for the interpreters to perform
adequately, and still others may be problematic in respect of the identification oferrors (when ideas and bits of information are not easy to identify and segment into
discrete units for the purpose of assessing the correctness of their rendering into thetarget language). The Kodak speech (the author thanks Kodak again for permission
to use the speech for research purposes) was found adequate for the purposes ofidentifying errors in Gile (1999b) and was therefore used again here with someconfidence.

4.

The experiment: method
The sample is composed of 20 professional interpreters, all of whom had beenworking for more than 5 years on the Parisian market and had French and English as
their A and B languages (not necessarily in that order). All were enlisted for the
study in the workplace, during the first half of a simultaneous interpreting working
day, after they had time to “warm up” with one or two turns of interpreting in thebooth in their “normal” assignment. They were told they would have to interpret
from English into French in the simultaneous mode (for the study reported in Gile,131999b, 10 subjects) or in the consecutive mode (for this study, 10 other subjects) theanswer of Kodak’s new CEO to a journalist’s question during a press conference held
when his appointment to this position was announced. They were also told theFrench translation of one difficult technical term, silver halide (halogénure d'argent in
French). Both in consecutive and in simultaneous, the speech (1 minute and 40
seconds) was interpreted in one stretch. The experiment was carried out ininterpretation booths: the source speech was played on a portable cassette player andheard by subjects through a standard headset. The interpreter’s target speech wasrecorded on a portable cassette recorder and transcribed.
The source speech was analyzed and nine potential problem triggers (false starts,
modifiers, digressions, lexical units with no obvious equivalent) were identified.
Note that not all the potential problem trigger types identified by the Effort Models(see above and Gile, 1995a) were found in the speech. The transcripts of the target
speeches were then scrutinized for signs of errors and omissions in the segments
containing these problem triggers, and the number of such errors and omissions inconsecutive vs. simultaneous were counted (Table 1).
For the purpose of assessing the “overall” superiority of consecutive vs.
simul-taneous or vice-versa in terms of accuracy, the speech was segmented asshown in Table 2 into 28 segments. The segments were determined subjectively, on
the basis of what I considered either complete translation units, or problematic units(see the discussion further down). For each segment, each corresponding
target-language rendition was rated (by myself first, and then by two other raters -see below) as faithful (and allocated +1 point), erroneous (-1 point), or difficult toclassify (0). For each segment, the sum of values for all 10 interpreters who worked
in consecutive was compared to the sum of values for all 10 interpreters who worked
in simulta-neous. The scores in simultaneous and in consecutive for each segment
were compared, and the number of segments for which the score was higher for
simulta-neous was compared with the number of segments for which the score washigher in consecutive as a metric for overall “fidelity”of consecutive vs.
simultaneous. Sensitivity analysis was carried out by checking whether the overall
superiority was still observed when only differences of at least 5 points between thescores for simultaneous and consecutive were taken into account (see Table 2).
Even though I did not have any (conscious) expectations regarding thesuperiority of consecutive over simultaneous or vice-versa, I checked for possible
experimenter bias by asking two other professional interpreters (Assessors B and C)
who had not taken part in the experiment to carry out the same rating procedure on
14

the transcripts (after all signs that could have identified target speech segments as
produced in the consecutive or the simultaneous mode had been removed). In viewof the strong convergence of results as shown in Table 2, I did not replicate theprocedure with more assessors.
Note that fidelity assessment was essentially conducted on an informational basis.
Assessors were instructed not to take linguistic correctness or elegance into account,the reason being high variability in the assessment of linguistic norm-compliance,
especially in transcripts of spontaneous speech (see Gile, 1985 and 1999a).

5.

Results

5.1

Examination of individual hypotheses
The 9 segments in Table 1 were singled out in advance for comparison (on thebasis of the transcripts only, with a single assessor -- I found the procedure reliable
enough because of the focused nature of the assessment). Other segments wereconsidered, for instance “. . . visual memories, or visual images” (Segment No. 14 inTable 2) and “. . . to communicate them, to distribute them” (Segment No. 22 in Table2) as false starts, but they were not included because it was not clear whether they
were genuine false starts or cases where the speaker formulated his ideas in one way
and then decided to add an alternative formulation.
In the case of false starts (Segments No. 1 and No. 5 in Table 1), the question waswhether interpreters would fall into the trap of starting their sentence with the false
start formulation. In the case of the incomplete segment (Segment No. 2 in Table 1),
the question was whether it would be interpreted erroneously or incompletely. In thecase of the unimportant modifiers (Segments No. 3 and No. 8 in Table 1), thesegments that were difficult to translate (No. 6,

No. 7 and No. 9 in Table 1), and thedigression (No. 4 in Table 1), the question was whether the information would be leftout. The number of occurrences of all these types of errors and omissions areindicated in the two rightmost columns of Table 1 for the simultaneous andconsecutive mode respectively.
It turns out that a very marked difference (10 “problems” in simultaneous vs.
none in consecutive) is found in favor of consecutive with respect to the incomplete
sentence, suggesting that in this case, the context made it possible for consecutive
interpreters to complete the analysis, while time pressure prevented simultaneousinterpreters from doing the same. No other strong differences in favor of consecutive
is seen in the table.
On the other hand, in the digression and the two unimportant modifiers, there
15

are differences of 4 or 5 in favor of simultaneous, which strengthens hypothesis 6 as
explained in Section 2 (unfortunately, the interpreters’ notes, taken duringconsecu-tive, were not available to investigate further what was noted and how).
5.2

Overall fidelity
As regards the overall agreement of simultaneous vs. consecutive renditions withthe 28 individual segments, Table 2 summarizes the results: simultaneousinterpre-ting clearly emerges as the most “accurate” mode. When counting thenumber of points for simultaneous vs. consecutive for each segment, all threeassessors found many more simultaneous renderings more faithful than consecutive
renderings: 21 to 6 for Assessor A, 17 to 9 for Assessor B, and 17 to 8 for Assessor C.
By way of a sensitivity analysis, calculations were also made only taking into
account differences of 5 points or more (the maximum theoretical difference for eachsegment would be 20, if all simultaneous renderings were assessed as correct and allconsecutive renderings as incorrect or vice-versa). With this more conservative
criterion, simultaneous was also found more accurate than consecutive: 14 to 3 forAssessor A, 12 to 2 for Assessor B, and to 11 to 1 for Assessor C (see the bottom lineof Table 2).

6.

Discussion and conclusion
At first sight, the data seem to demonstrate that in the case of the particular speechstudied and its interpretation, the simultaneous mode is more “accurate” than theconsecutive mode. However, the findings need to be considered with caution:a)

The assessment was done on transcripts, not on a sound track, which might

affect general judgments regarding fidelity (as shown in Gile, 1999a).
b)

The procedure whereby small segments are assessed in relative isolation may

produce a different perception of accuracy from that resulting from the assessmentof the whole speech on a continuous mode.
c)

The very way that the segmentation was done, on the basis of difficulties

encountered, gives salience to local information discrepancies which might well havebeen undetected in the middle of larger segments (see Gile, 1995b) and led todifferent assessments of consecutive vs. simultaneous.
Nevertheless, the results seem to suggest that the general claim that “consecutive
is more accurate than simultaneous” deserves to be seriously challenged. Certain
differences in the accuracy of simultaneous vs. consecutive can probably be
predicted and tested on the basis of both cognitive load and technical considerations
16

(in particular information density on the one hand, and note-taking on the other) as
was done in this study. However, while this procedure may yield satisfactory resultswith respect to specific types of problem triggers, it remains to be seen whether it
can result in any meaningful results in holistic terms, in view of the high variability
and lack of reliability of individual assessments.
Finally, it may be worth recalling that in this exploratory study, only a few
problem triggers were studied. Beyond replications to confirm or challenge theresults obtained here, it might be interesting to extend the study to look more closely
at other factors such as mentioned in Section 2, including intercultural and linguistic
factors. If the hypotheses are confirmed, this could mean that in some language
combinations, consecutive may tend to be more accurate than simultaneous, while inothers, the relation would be the other way around.

Daniel Gile

AIIC Conference Interpreter and Professor at Universite Lyon 2. Dr. Gile isthe founder and the main node of the IRN (International Research Network, a.k.a.
Information Network on Conference Interpreting Research) which was set up in 1990 for
the purpose of facilitating the circulation of information on conference interpreting
research. The Online IRN Bulletin is available at: <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/
homepages/DGile>. Contact the author at: <DGile@compuserve.com>.

REFERENCES
Dawrant, A. (1996). Word Order in Chinese-into-English Simultaneous Interpretation: An
Initial Exploration. Unpublished M.A. thesis, GITIS, Fu Jen University.
De Bot, K. (2000). Simultaneous Interpreting as Language Production. In Englund
Dimitrova, Birgitta & Kenneth Hyltenstam (eds). Language Processing and SimultaneousInterpretation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 65-88.
De Groot, A. (2000). A Complex-skill Approach to Translation and Interpreting. In
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja & Riita Jääskeläinen (eds). Tapping and Mapping the Processes ofTranslation and Interpreting. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 53-68.
Gile, D. (1985). La sensibilité aux écarts de langue et la sélection d'informateurs dansl'analyse d'erreurs: une expérience. The Incorporated Linguist 24:1. 29-32.
Gile, D. (1995a). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (1995b). Fidelity Assessment in Consecutive Interpretation: An Experiment. Target177:1. 151-164.
Gile, D. (1999a). Variability in the perception of fidelity in simultaneous interpretation.
Hermes 22. 51-79.
Gile, D. (1999b). Testing the Effort Models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneousinterpreting - A contribution. Hermes 23. 153-172.
Lamberger-Felber, H. (1998). Der Einfluss kontextueller Faktoren auf das Simultandolmetschen.
Eine Fallstudie am Beispiel gelesener Reden. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Karl
Franzens Universität Graz
Longley, P. (1968). Conference Interpreting. London: Pitman.
Mazza, C. (2000). Numbers in Simultaneous Interpretation. Unpublished graduation thesis(tesi di laurea), Universita degli Studi di Bologna, SSLMIT, Sede di Forli.
Mizuno, A. (2000). Tsuuyaku riron kenkyuu no chihei: Johoushori apuroochi togoyouron-teki kenkyuu. Tsuuyakukenkyuu Special Issue 2000. 52-67.
Setton, R. (1999). Simultaneous Interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam
and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Shlesinger, M. (2000). Strategic Allocation of Working Memory and Other Attentional Resources inSimultaneous Interpreting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. BarIlan University.
Van Hoof, R. (1962). Théorie et pratique de l'interprétation (avec application pratique àl'anglais et au français. Munich: Max Hueber.
Weber, W. (1989). Improved Ways of Teaching Consecutive Interpretation. In Gran,
Laura & John Doods (eds). The Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Teaching Conference
Interpretation. Udine: Campanotto Editore. 161-166.

Table 1
Problem Triggers and Their Effects in Simultaneous and in Consecutive
Number oferrors andomissions insimultaneous

Number oferrors andomissions inconsecutive

False start3

1

I don't know these people yet

Incomplete

10

0

3

Well enough

Modifier

2

7

4

Let's concentrate on that

Digression

5

9

5

For the not, for the foreseeable future

False start

0

0

6

Cost-effective

7

7

7

Highest resolution

Difficult totranslateDifficult totranslate

7

5

No.

Segment in the source speech

Type

1

I'm sure my

2

18

8
9

Perhaps totally different

Modifier

5

9Killers

Difficult totranslate

75

Table 2Overall Fidelity Assessments for Each Segment
No.

Segment in the source speech

AssessorA

Assessor
B

AssessorC

1

I'm sure my

C (+2)

S (+1)

C (+1)

2

I don't even know these people yet

C (+9)

S (+8)

C (+3)

3

But I know scientists and engineers wellenough to know
That they wouldn't be happy if I preannounced products

S (+5)

S (+2)

S (+2)

S (+2)

S (+6)

S (+5)

4
5

But since I don't know all about what the
product are

S (+3)

C (+2)

C (+2)

6

I can speak loosely, I guess

S (+9)

S (+8)

S (+3)

7

I think when you look at the imaging side of
Kodak
Let's concentrate on that
And recognize that for the not, theforeseeable future

C (+6)--

C (+2)

S (+6)

S (+6)

S (+6)

S (+11)

S (+8)

S (+10)10

As far as capture goes

S (+2)

S (+6)-

11

That the silver halide capture media isprobably… that one could ask for

S (+8)

C (+4)

C (+2)

12

The most cost-effective

C (+4)

C (+1)-

13

Highest resolution

S (+5)

C (+5)

C (+5)

14

Means of capturing visual memories, or visual
imagesSo to me, you want to put that in the context
of being a very effective way of getting theinformation to begin with
Then you've got to talk about how you getthat information into a digital form--

S (+5)

S (+3)

S (+6)

S (+2)

S (+1)

S (+4)

S (+6)--

17

To use over information networks

S (+4)

C (+1)

S (+5)

18

I think you can think of a whole arrayof possibilities

S (+9)

S (+6)

S (+6)

19

Once you start thinking in a broader context

S (+13)

S (+7)

S (+15)20

Of Kodak's imaging business really being--

C (+2)

S (+1)

21

To preserve visual memories

C (+1)

C (+2)

S (+6)

22

And to communicate them, to distribute them

S (+8)

C (+1)

S (+9)

23

In perhaps ways that are totally different
than what people envisage today

S (+6)

S (+7)

S (+10)24

Then I'll let your imagination run off with you

S (+7)

S (+6)

S (+9)

25

Cause mine sure does with me. I laid awake thelast two nights thinking about those possibilities

S (+9)--

C (+4)

26

And they're really exciting

S (+9)

S (+2)

S (+6)

27

But ninety percent of my ideas may never work

S (+1)

C (+6)

S (+4)

8
9

15
16

19

28

But there's ten percent that will be killers

C (+6)

S (+4)

C (+3)

Total: overall

S:21 / C:6

S:17 / C:9

S:17 / C:8

Total: difference > 4

S:14 / C:3

S:12 / C:2

S:11 / C:1

Note : In the right-most columns, “S (+n)” means that simultaneous was found to be
more faithful than consecutive by n points, and “C (+n)“ that consecutive was found to
be more faithful than simultaneous by n points as regards the relevant segment. A cellwith a double-hyphen indicates there was no difference in points between simultaneousand consecutive. The penultimate line indicates the number of segments for which
simultaneous was found superior to consecutive vs. the number of segments for whichconsecutive was found superior to simultaneous. The ultimate line indicates the same,
when only differences of 5 points and above were considered.

APPENDIX:

Source Speech

Question: You suggested that through Kodak you can manipulate technology and fit inwith this information revolution. Can you be more specific about the kind of productsthat Kodak will eventually be able to produce ?
Answer: I’m sure my... I don’t even know these people yet but I know scientists andengineers well enough to know that they would not be very happy if I pre-announced
products, but since I don’t know all about what the products are, I can speak loosely I
guess. I think when you look at the imaging side of Kodak, let’s concentrate on that, andrecognize that for the not, for the foreseeable future, as far as capture goes, that the silver
halide capture media is probably the most cost-effective, highest resolution means of
capturing visual memories, or visual images, that one could ask for. So to me, you wantto put that in the context of being a very effective way of getting the information to begin
with, then you’ve got to talk about how you get that information into a digital form touse over information networks, I think you can begin to think of a whole array ofpossibilities. Once you start thinking in a broader context of Kodak’s imaging businessreally being to preserve visual memories, and to communicate them, and to distributethem, in perhaps ways that are totally different than people envision today, than I’ll let
your imagination run off with you, cause mine sure does with me. I laid awake the last
two nights thinking about those possibilities, and they’re really exciting but ninety
percent of my ideas may never work, but there’s ten percent that will be killers.

20