Do notifications cause errors? The impact of hover effect and notifications on attention
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54359/ps.v19i108.2216Abstract
Introduction / Problem. Despite the widespread use of websites and notifications, few studies have examined whether distraction caused by notifications can lead to attentional errors. To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has investigated this issue while taking other website characteristics into account. Objective. The present study aimed to clarify whether attentional errors may arise from distraction by notifications while varying website hover effects, that is, perceptual feedback from interactive elements, and notification characteristics, including animation and content, in tasks assessing sustained attention and attentional shifting. Methods. Five experiments were conducted: Experiments 1–3 focused on sustained attention, whereas Experiments 4–5 examined attentional shifting. A modified Bourdon test was used as the primary task. Results. Accuracy in the sustained attention task was higher when hover effects were present, even when notifications appeared. However, this effect disappeared when notifications included content. Moreover, in the hover-effect condition, performance on the sustained attention task was associated with an increased number of errors after notifications were closed. For attentional shifting, no performance advantage was found in the hover-effect condition, nor was there an increase in errors after notifications appeared. In both tasks, notifications were detected more quickly when hover effects were present, suggesting a facilitative effect on selective attention. Conclusions. The findings indicate that notifications do not inevitably lead to errors. Such errors appear to arise only under a combination of conditions: high cognitive load and the presence of hover effects on a website.
Downloads
References
Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2002). Memory for goals: an activation‐based model. Cognitive Science, 26(1), 39–83. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2601_2
Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. (2004). Task interruption: Resumption lag and the role of cues. Pro-ceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 26, 43–48. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/18b4r661
Altmann, E. M., Trafton, J. G., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2017). Effects of interruption length on procedur-al errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(2), 216–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000117
Anufrieva, A. (2025). Cognitive-digital interaction: the state of the field, weaknesses and solutions. Acta Psychologica, 259, 105229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105229
Anufrieva, A., & Gorbunova, E. (2025). Overload but guide: impact of environment saturation on attention and working memory under real and digital conditions. Psychological Studies, 18(101), 6. https://doi.org/10.54359/cd2atw15
Brazzolotto, P., Duran, G., & Michael, G. (2021). How do we handle interruptions? Investigating the processes underlying the resumption of interrupted tasks. Psychologie Française, 67(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psfr.2021.05.001
Brumby, D. P., Janssen, C. P., & Mark, G. (2019). How do interruptions affect productivity? In С. Sadowski, & T. Zimmermann (Eds.), Rethinking productivity in software engineering (pp. 85–107). Apress eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-4221-6_9
Chen, C., & Huang, S. (2013). Web-based reading annotation system with an attention-based self-regulated learning mechanism for promoting reading performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 959–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12119
Czerwinski, M., Cutrell, E., & Horvitz, E. (2000). Instant messaging and interruption: Influence of task type on performance. In C. Paris, N. Ozkan, S. Howard, & S. Lu (Eds.), Proceedings of OZ-CHI 2000: Interfacing reality in the new millennium (pp. 356–361). Academic Press.
Couffe, C., & Michael, G. A. (2017). Failures due to interruptions or distractions: a review and a new framework. The American Journal of Psychology, 130(2), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.130.2.0163
Cutrell, E., Czerwinski, M., & Horvitz, E. (2000). Effects of instant messaging interruptions on com-puting tasks. CHI ’00 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 99–100. https://doi:10.1145/633292.633351
Fisher, A. V. (2019). Selective sustained attention: a developmental foundation for cognition. Current Opinion in Psychology, 29, 248–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.002
Firth, J., Torous, J., Stubbs, B., Firth, J. A., Steiner, G. Z., Smith, L., Alvarez-Jimenez, M., Gleeson, J., Vancampfort, D., Armitage, C. J., & Sarris, J. (2019). The "online brain": how the In-ternet may be changing our cognition. World psychiatry: official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 18(2), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20617
Fournier, H., Fournel, A., Osiurak, F., Koenig, O., Pâris, F., Gaujoux, V., & Ringeval, F. (2026). Attention hijacked: How social media notifications disrupt cognitive processing. Computers in Human Behavior, 179, 108926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2026.108926
Hirsch, P., Moretti, L., Askin, S., & Koch, I. (2023). Examining the cognitive processes underlying resumption costs in task-interruption contexts: Decay or inhibition of suspended task goals? Memory & Cognition, 52, 271–284. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-023-01458-8
Huang, M. (2003). Designing website attributes to induce experiential encounters. Computers in Hu-man Behavior, 19(4), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0747-5632(02)00080-8
Klauck, M., Sugano, Y., & Bulling, A. (2017, May 6). Noticeable or distractive? A design space for gaze-contingent user interface notifications. In CHI EA '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Confer-ence Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1779–1786). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053085
Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2020). Citizens versus the internet: Confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 21(3), 103–156.
Lavie, N., & Dalton, P. (2014). Load theory of attention and cognitive control. In A. C. Nobre, & S. Kastner (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Attention (pp. 56–75). Oxford University Press.
Lavie, N., & Tsal, Y. (1994). Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 56(2), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03213897
Levy, E. C., Rafaeli, S., & Ariel, Y. (2016). The effect of online interruptions on the quality of cogni-tive performance. Telematics and Informatics, 33(4), 1014–1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.03.003
Matthews, T., Dey, A. K., Mankoff, J., Carter, S. L., & Rattenbury, T. (2004). A toolkit for manag-ing user attention in peripheral displays. Proceedings of the 17th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1145/1029632.1029676
Maxfield, J., & Zelinsky, G. J. (2012). Searching through the hierarchy: How level of target categori-zation affects visual search. Visual Cognition, 20(10), 1153–1163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2012.735718
McCrickard, D. S., Czerwinski, M., & Bartram, L. (2003a). Introduction: design and evaluation of notification user interfaces. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(5), 509–514.
McCrickard, D. S., Chewar, C. M., Somervell, J. P., & Ndiwalana, A. (2003b). A model for notifica-tion systems evaluation – Assessing user goals for multitasking activity. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 10(4), 312-338. ACM Press.
Miyata, Y., & Norman, D. A. (1986). Psychological issues in support of multiple activities. In Nor-man, D. A., & Draper, S. W. (Eds.), User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human–Computer Interaction (p. 265–284). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nguyen, K., Watanabe, T., & Andersen, G. J. (2020). Role of endogenous and exogenous attention in task-relevant visual perceptual learning. PLOS ONE, 15(8), e0237912. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237912
Norman, D. A. (1992). Design principles for cognitive artifacts. Research in Engineering Design, 4(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02032391
Norman, D. A. (2008). The way I see it: Signifiers, not affordances. Interactions, 15(6), 18–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/1409040.1409044
Okoshi, T., Nozaki, H., Nakazawa, J., Tokuda, H., Ramos, J., & Dey, A. K. (2016). Towards atten-tion-aware adaptive notification on smart phones. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 26, 17–34.
Paul, C. L. (2013). A Model of Contextual Factors and their Effects in the Interruptive Notification User Experience [Dissertation]. University of Maryland.
Sapronov, F., & Gorbunova, E. (2022). The Role of Emotional Information in Banner Blindness. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 813440. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.813440
Stothart, C., Mitchum, A., & Yehnert, C. (2015). The attentional cost of receiving a cell phone notifi-cation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(4), 893–897. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000100
Sweller, J. (2024). Cognitive load theory and individual differences. Learning and Individual Differ-ences, 110, 102423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102423
Takemura, H. (2010). Visual motion detection sensitivity is enhanced by orthogonal induced motion. Journal of Vision, 10(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.2.9
Trafton, J. G., Altmann, E. M., Brock, D. P., & Mintz, F. E. (2003). Preparing to resume an inter-rupted task: effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal. IJHCS, 58(5), 583–603.
Unsworth, N., Robison, M. K., & Miller, A. L. (2021). Individual differences in lapses of attention: A latent variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(7), 1303–1331. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000998
Wilson, T. B. (2006). Gradual awareness notification for the desktop environment [Doctoral disserta-tion]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/36905
Wilmer, H. H., Sherman, L. E., & Chein, J. (2017). Smartphones and cognition: A review of research exploring the links between mobile technology habits and cognitive functioning. Frontiers in Psy-chology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00605
Wolfe, J. M. (2021). Guided Search 6.0: An updated model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(4), 1060–1092. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01859-9
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
