# Assessing Pause Thresholds for empirical Translation Process Research

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01410 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.01410/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 2 of its 15 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Apr 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [The Behavioural Translation Style Space: Towards simulating the temporal dynamics of affect, behaviour, and cognition in human translation production](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.12208/) (2025)
- [Hylog: A Hybrid Approach to Logging Text Production in Non-alphabetic Scripts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.17753/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Replicating a Disjoint-Set Union Experiment over Various Notions of Micro Units to assess Translation Effort](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.07748/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Text production (and translations) proceeds in the form of stretches of typing, interrupted by keystroke pauses. It is often assumed that fast typing reflects unchallenged/automated translation production while long(er) typing pauses are indicative of translation problems, hurdles or difficulties. Building on a long discussion concerning the determination of pause thresholds that separate automated from presumably reflective translation processes (O'Brien, 2006; Alves and Vale, 2009; Timarova et al., 2011; Dragsted and Carl, 2013; Lacruz et al., 2014; Kumpulainen, 2015; Heilmann and Neumann 2016), this paper compares five approaches for computing these pause thresholds, and suggest and evaluate a novel method for computing Production Unit Breaks.