An empirical take on the dubbing vs. subtitling debate. An eye movement study


Abstract - The empirical study of the processing of dubbed and subtitled audiovisual content still lacks attention in academic circles and the discussion commonly draws on anecdotal and speculative assumptions. To address this issue, we carried out two studies to explore the cognitive, evaluative and visual reception of dubbed and subtitled content using behavioural data and eye tracking, and different audiovisual materials with varying levels of complexity. The results support the value of both dubbing and subtitling as effective translation methods. Our findings suggest that both techniques are cognitively effective and positively received and assessed by viewers. However, the eye-tracking data suggest that in spite of these results, the processing of complex subtitled films might require more effort from viewers and require them to accelerate their reading process. Apart from highlighting the relevance of complexity, the experimental design also hints at the possible influence of stimulus length as a factor affecting performance.

DOI Code: 10.1285/i22390359v19p255

Keywords: eye tracking; complexity; subtitling; dubbing; reception


Barsam R. 2007, Looking at Movies. An Introduction to Film, Norton & Company, New York.

Bazin A. 1967, What is Cinema?, University of California Press, California.

Chmiel A. and Mazur I. 2016, Researching Preferences of Audio Description Users – Limitations and Solutions, in Perego E. (ed.), Empirical Approaches to Audiovisual Translation, Special Issue of “Across Languages and Cultures” 17 [2], pp. 271-288.

d’Ydewalle G., Praet C., Verfaillie K. and Van Rensbergen J. 1991, Watching Subtitled Television. Automatic Reading Behaviour, in “Communication Research” 18, pp. 650-666.

d’Ydewalle G. and De Bruycker W. 2007. Eye Movements of Children and Adults while Reading Television Subtitles, in “European Psychologist” 12, pp. 196-205.

Dwyer T. 2015, From Subtitles to SMS: Eye Tracking, Texting and Sherlock, in “Refractory. A Journal of Entertainment Media”. (5.26.2016).

Farah M.J. 2000, The Cognitive Neuroscience of Vision, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Goldstein R.B., Woods R.L. and Peli E. 2007. Where People Look when Watching Movies: Do All Viewers Look at the Same Place?, in “Computers in Biology and Medicine” 37 [7], pp. 957-964.

Grimes T. 1991, Mild Auditory-Visual Dissonance in Television News May Exceed Viewer Attentional Capacity, in “Human Communication Research” 18, pp. 268–298.

Hinkin M.P., Harris R.J. and Miranda A.T. 2014, Verbal Redundancy Aids Memory for Filmed Entertainment Dialogue, in “The Journal of Psychology” 148 [2], pp. 161-176.

Jenkins H. 2010, Transmedia Storytelling and Entertainment: An Annotated Syllabus, in “Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies” 24 [6], pp. 943-958.

Jenkins H. 2011, Transmedia 202: Further Reflections. Confessions of an AcaFan. (5.26.2016).

Jensema C.J., El Sharkawy S., Danturthi R.S., Burch R. and Hsu D. 2000, Eye Movement Patterns of Captioned Television Viewers, in “American Annals of the Deaf” 145 [5], pp. 275-285.

Kruger J.L., Hefer E. and Matthew, G. 2014, Attention Distribution and Cognitive Load in a Subtitled Academic Lecture: L1 vs. L2, in “Journal of Eye Movement Research” 7 [5], pp. 1-15.

Kruger J.L., Szarkowska A. and Krejtz I. 2015, Subtitles on the Moving Image: an Overview of Eye Tracking Studies, in “Refractory” 25. (5.26.2016).

Labov W., 1972, Sociolinguistic patterns, Blackwell, Oxford.

Lang A., Geiger S., Strickwerda M. and Sumner J. 1993, The Effects of Related and Unrelated Cuts on Television Viewers’ Attention, Processing Capacity, and Memory, in “Communication Research” 20 [1], pp. 4-29.

Lang A., Zhou S., Schwartz N., Bolls P. and Potter R. 2000, The Effects of Edits on Arousal, Attention, and Memory for Television Messages: When an Edit is an Edit Can an Edit be too Much?, in “Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media” 44 [1], pp. 94-109.

Li Y. 2000, Linguistic Characteristics of ESL Writing in Task-Based E-Mail Activities, in “System” 28, pp. 229-245.

Marleau L. 1982, Le sous-titres: Un mal necessaire, in “Meta” 27 [3], pp. 271-285.

Monaco J. 2009, How to Read a Film. Movie, Media and Beyond, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Murphy J.J. 2007, Me and You and Memento and Fargo, Continuum, New York.

Nichols A.L. and Maner J.K. 2008, The Good-Subject Effect: Investigating Participant Demand Characteristics, in “Journal of General Psychology” 135, pp. 151-166.

Orrego-Carmona D. 2015, The Reception of (Non)Professional Subtitling, Unpublished PhD thesis, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona.

Pavesi M. 2005, La traduzione cinematografica, Carocci, Rome.

Perego E. (ed.), 2012, Eye Tracking in Audiovisual Translation, Aracne, Rome.

Perego E., Del Missier F. and Bottiroli S. 2015, Dubbing and Subtitling in Young and Older Adults: Cognitive and Evaluative Aspects, in “Perspectives: Studies in Translatology“ 23 [1], pp. 1-21.

Perego E., Del Missier F., Porta M. and Mosconi M. 2010, The Cognitive Effectiveness of Subtitle Processing, in “Media Psychology” 13, pp. 243-272.

Perego E., Del Missier, F. and Stragà, M. 2016, Dubbing vs. Subtitling: Complexity Matters, Accepted for publication in “Target”.

Pratten R. 2015, Getting Started in Transmedia Storytelling: A Practical Guide for Beginners, CreateSpace, London.

Rayner K. 1984, Visual Selection in Reading, Picture Perception, and Visual Search: A Tutorial Review, in Bouma H. and Bouhwhuis D. (eds.), Attention and Performance 10, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Romero-Fresco, P. 2015, The Reception of Subtitles for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing in Europe. UK, Spain, Italy, Poland, Denmark, France and Germany, Peter Lang, Bern.

Saldanha G., O’Brien S. 2013, Research Methodologies in Translation Studies, Routledge, New York.

Szarkowska A., Krejtz I., Łogińska M. Dutka Ł. and Krejtz K. 2015, The Influence of Shot Changes on Reading Subtitles – A Preliminary Study, in Perego E. and Bruti S. (eds.), Subtitling Today: Shapes and Their Meanings, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp. 99-118.

Szmrecsányi B.M. 2004, On Operationalizing Syntactic Complexity, in Purnelle G.G., Fairon G. and Dister A. (eds.), Le poids des mots. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis, Presses Universitaires de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, pp. 1032-1038.

Taylor C. 2012, Multimodal Texts, in Perego E. (ed.), Eye Tracking in Audiovisual Translation, Aracne, Rome, pp. 13-35.

Taylor C. 2016, The Multimodal Approach in Audiovisual Translation, in Gambier Y. and Ramos Pinto S. (eds.), Audiovisual Translation: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges, Special Issue of “Target” 28 [2], pp. 222-236.

Tosi V., Mecacci L. and Pasquali E. 1997, Scanning Eye Movements Made when Viewing Film: Preliminary Observations, in “International Journal of Neuroscience” 92 [1/2], pp. 47-52.

Winke P., Gass, S. and Sydorenko, T. 2013, Factors Influencing the Use of Captions by Foreign Language Learners: An Eye Tracking Study, in “The Modern Language Journal” 97 [1], pp. 254-275.

Wissmath B., Weibel D. and Groner R. 2009, Dubbing or Subtitling? Effects on Spatial Presence, Transportation, Flow, and Enjoyment, in “Journal of Media Psychology” 21, pp. 114-125.

Full Text: pdf


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Italia License.