## 4 Results and Discussions
### Retrospective Self-Reflections
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Allocation of Cognitive Resources to ST and TT**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Allocation of Cognitive Resources to ST and TT**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **S1–3** & **S4–6** & **S7–9** & **S1–3** & **S4–6** & **S7–9** \\ \hline P06 & 60/40 & 60/40 & 60/40 & P17 & 70/30 & 70/30 & 70/30 \\ \hline P07 & 50/50 & 60/40 & 60/40 & P18 & 40/60 & 40/60 & 50/50 \\ \hline P08 & 50/50 & 60/40 & 60/40 & P19 & 70/30 & 70/30 & 80/20 \\ \hline P09 & 50/50 & 60/40 & 60/40 & P20 & 50/50 & 40/60 & 50/50 \\ \hline P10 & 60/40 & 70/30 & 70/30 & P21 & 60/40 & 70/30 & 80/20 \\ \hline P11 & 50/50 & 50/50 & 50/50 & P22 & 50/50 & 50/50 & 50/50 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Allocation of Cognitive Resources to ST and TT**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Allocation of Cognitive Resources to ST and TT**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **S1–3** & **S4–6** & **S7–9** & **S1–3** & **S4–6** & **S7–9** \\ \hline P01 & 40/60 & 30/70 & 30/70 & P12 & 30/70 & 30/70 & 30/70 \\ \hline P02 & 40/60 & 40/60 & 40/60 & P13 & 50/50 & 40/60 & 40/60 \\ \hline P03 & 40/60 & 30/70 & 30/70 & P14 & 30/70 & 30/70 & 30/70 \\ \hline P04 & 20/80 & 30/70 & 50/50 & P15 & 30/70 & 20/80 & 20/80 \\ \hline P05 & 20/80 & S & S & P16 & 40/60 & 40/60 & 35/65 \\ \hline P06 & 40/60 & 50/50 & 50/50 & P17 & 50/50 & 40/60 & 40/60 \\ \hline P07 & 40/60 & 50/50 & 50/50 & P18 & 30/70 & 30/70 & 20/80 \\ \hline P08 & 20/80 & 20/80 & 10/90 & P19 & 50/50 & 45/55 & 40/60 \\ \hline P09 & 40/60 & 30/70 & 20/80 & P20 & 50/50 & 50/50 & 40/60 \\ \hline P10 & 40/60 & 30/70 & 30/70 & P21 & 50/50 & 40/60 & 30/70 \\ \hline P11 & 20/80 & 20/80 & 20/80 & P22 & 50/50 & 45/55 & 30/70 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Self-reflection: C-E translation. she experienced no hesitation during production and rarely reviewed her Chinese target text, trusting that it would naturally sound appropriate. Similarly, [PERSON] noted that reviewing her output was unnecessary when translating into Chinese, describing the language as \"too familiar\" to pose any challenge. Interestingly, even though most participants were unfamiliar with the formal concept of parallel processing in translation, several reflected on the overlapping nature of source text comprehension and target text production. Some also referred to the automatic nature of certain translation behaviors, particularly when working in their first language. These observations align with the findings of [PERSON] [12], who identified instances of automatic and parallel processing in English-Danish translation tasks, suggesting that either the input is passively retained in sensory memory during typing, or that keystrokes themselves occur without conscious monitoring. Similar patterns emerged in the present study. Several participants reported that typing in their native language, especially for simple and frequently used expressions such as \"\(\
ot|\)FicU\" (so) or \"\(\
ot|\)FicU\" (but), occurred with minimal cognitive effort. As P12 described, the act of typing felt entirely automatic: \"I just feel my fingers moving and typing without thinking\". Notably, no such comments were made regarding English target text production during L1-to-L2 translation. Furthermore, in the context of C-E translation, participant P16 acknowledged the difficulty in separating ST comprehension from TT production, noting that the processes often overlapped -- particularly when the Chinese source material was clear and easily understood. To summarize, the eye-tracking and keystroke logging data reveal that participants exhibit diverse patterns of resource allocation across both translation directions, highlighting significant variations in translation strategies and cognitive approaches among individuals.