Overload but guide: The impact of environment saturation on attention and work-ing memory under real and digital conditions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54359/cd2atw15Keywords:
digital vs. real environment, cognitive-digital interaction, working memory, attention, hover effect, overload, guidanceAbstract
The digital environment surrounds us everywhere. However, little is known about the differences between digital and real environmental impact on cognitive functions. Initially, the present study aimed to juxtapose attention and working memory (WM) performance under digital and real conditions. In Experiment 1, attention and WM were assessed using modified versions of classical tasks presented in either a digital (computer-based) or real (paper-based) format. The results showed that both sustained attention and visual WM were superior in the real environment, suggesting a potential overloading effect of the digital context. Experiment 2 examined the mechanisms underlying attentional shifting and sustained attention in digital environments by manipulating the level of environmental saturation (SAT). SAT refers to the degree of interactivity in an environment, particularly in terms of whether actions are initiated and guided by the human user or by the system (e.g., interface elements). A specific manipulation involved perceptual feedback – such as hover effects (changes in element state or color in response to user actions). The results indicated that sustained attention performance improved in highly saturated digital environments, whereas this effect was not observed for attentional shifting. These findings suggest that, although digital environments may overload attentional resources compared to real ones, certain features of saturation—such as interactive feedback – can enhance attentional engagement. Thus, environmental saturation plays a guiding role in shaping cognitive performance in digital contexts.
Downloads
References
Ardislamov V., Kulieva A., Shahova D. Ghosts of the past: cognitive load, long-term memory, and metacognitions in the assessment of time intervals. Psychological Studies, 2023, Vol. 16, No. 90, 1. DOI:10.54359/ps.v16i90.1433 (in Russian)
Baddeley A. Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 2012, Vol. 63, No. 1, 1–29. DOI:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422
Bouriga S., Olive T. Is typewriting more resources-demanding than handwriting in undergraduate students? Reading and Writing, 2021, Vol. 34, No. 9, 2227–2255. DOI:10.1007/s11145-021-10137-6
Delgado P., Salmerón L. The inattentive on-screen reading: Reading medium affects attention and reading comprehension under time pressure. Learning and Instruction, 2021, Vol. 71, Art. 101396. DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101396
Donkin C., Little D.R., Houpt J.W. Assessing the speed-accuracy trade-off effect on the capacity of information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2014, Vol. 40, No. 3, 1183–1202. DOI:10.1037/a0035947
Engle R.W. Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2002, Vol. 11, No. 1, 19–23. DOI:10.1111/1467-8721.00160
Firth J., Torous J., Stubbs B., Firth J.A., Steiner G.Z., Smith L., et al. The "online brain": how the Internet may be changing our cognition. World Psychiatry, 2019, Vol. 18, No. 2, 119–129. DOI:10.1002/wps.20617
FreeFrontend. 2022. URL: https://freefrontend.com/css-hover-effects/ (accessed: 14.10.2024)
Gomez M.A., Skiba R.M., Snow J.C. Graspable objects grab attention more than images do. Psycho-logical Science, 2017, Vol. 29, No. 2, 206–218. DOI:10.1177/0956797617730599
Hou J., Rashid J., Lee K.M. Cognitive map or medium materiality? Reading on paper and screen. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017, Vol. 67, 84–94. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.014
Huang M. Designing website attributes to induce experiential encounters. Computers in Human Be-havior, 2003, Vol. 19, No. 4, 425–442. DOI:10.1016/s0747-5632(02)00080-8
Kallinikos J., Aaltonen A., Márton A. The ambivalent ontology of digital artifacts. Management In-formation Systems Quarterly, 2013, Vol. 37, No. 2, 357–370. DOI:10.25300/misq/2013/37.2.02
Lee B. Comparing factual recall of tapped vs. handwritten text. Acta Psychologica, 2021, Vol. 212, Art. 103221. DOI:10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103221
Li Y., Wang S.K., Shan Q., Xia X. Singleton effect decreases under time pressure: An fNIRS study. Brain and Cognition, 2023, Vol. 171, Art. 106074. DOI:10.1016/j.bandc.2023.106074
Lin C., Wang M.J., Kang Y. The evaluation of visuospatial performance between screen and paper. Displays, 2015, Vol. 39, 26–32. DOI:10.1016/j.displa.2015.08.002
Mangen A., Walgermo B.R., Brønnick K. Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Ef-fects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 2013, Vol. 58, 61–68. DOI:10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002
Marsh E.J., Rajaram S. The digital expansion of the mind: Implications of internet usage for memory and cognition. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2019, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1–14. DOI:10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.11.001
Nasiri E., Khalilzad M., Hakimzadeh Z., et al. A comprehensive review of attention tests: can we as-sess what we exactly do not understand? The Egyptian Journal of Neurology, Psychiatry and Neuro-surgery, 2023, Vol. 59, No. 1. DOI:10.1186/s41983-023-00628-4
Nelson T.O. Metamemory: a theoretical framework and new findings. In: The Psychology of Learn-ing and Motivation, 1990, Vol. 26, 125–173. DOI:10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60053-5
Norman D.A. Cognitive artifacts. In: Carroll J.M. (Ed.) Designing interaction: Psychology at the hu-man-computer interface. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. — P. 17–38.
Norman D.A. THE WAY I SEE IT. Signifiers, not affordances. Interactions, 2008. Vol. 15, No. 6, 18–19. DOI:10.1145/1409040.1409044
Porion A., Aparicio X., Mégalakaki O., Robert A., Baccino T. The impact of paper-based versus computerized presentation on text comprehension and memorization. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016, Vol. 54, 569–576. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.002
Risko E.F., Gilbert S.J. Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2016. Vol. 20, No. 9, 676–688. DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002
Scott J.G. Attention/concentration: the distractible patient. In: The Little Black Book of Neuropsy-chology: A Syndrome-Based Approach. — Boston, MA: Springer US, 2010. — P. 149–158.
Sherbakova O.V., Isaeva T.E. Comprehension of digital and printed texts: results of a pilot study. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2024, Vol. 21, No. 4, 710–728. DOI:10.17323/1813-8918-2024-4-710-728 (in Russian)
Snow J.C., Culham J.C. The treachery of images: How realism influences brain and behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2021, Vol. 25, No. 6, 506–519. DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.008
Snow J.C., Skiba R.M., Coleman T.L., Berryhill M.E. Real-world objects are more memorable than photographs of objects. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2014, Vol. 8, Art. 837. DOI:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00837
Sztybel P., Gómez M.A., Snow J.C. Graspable objects grab attention more than images do – even when no motor response is required. Journal of Vision, 2019, Vol. 19, No. 10, 221. DOI:10.1167/19.10.221
Umejima K., Ibaraki T., Yamazaki T., Sakai K. Paper notebooks vs. mobile devices: Brain activation differences during memory retrieval. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 2021, Vol. 15. DOI:10.3389/fnbeh.2021.634158
Wang Q., Sa Y., Liu M., Cao Z., Ma Q. An eye-tracking study of website complexity from cognitive load perspective. Decision Support Systems, 2014, Vol. 62, 1–10. DOI:10.1016/j.dss.2014.02.007
Wiechmann W., Edwards R.A., Low C., Wray A., Boysen‐Osborn M., Toohey S. No difference in factual or conceptual recall comprehension for tablet, laptop, and handwritten note-taking by medical students in the United States: a survey-based observational study. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 2022, Vol. 19, Art. 8. DOI:10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.8
Williams A.M. User-centered design, activity-centered design, and goal-directed design. Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication. — 2009. — P. 1–8. DOI:10.1145/1621995.1621997
Wilmer H.H., Sherman L.E., Chein J. Smartphones and cognition: A review of research exploring the links between mobile technology habits and cognitive functioning. Frontiers in Psychology, 2017, Vol. 8. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00605
Wu C.M., Schulz E., Pleskac T.J., Speekenbrink M. Time pressure changes how people explore and respond to uncertainty. Scientific Reports, 2022, Vol. 12, No. 1. DOI:10.1038/s41598-022-07901-1
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
