title: Cognitive control in media multitaskers.
abstract: Chronic media multitasking is quickly becoming ubiquitous, although processing multiple incoming streams of information is considered a challenge for human cognition. A series of experiments addressed whether there are systematic differences in information processing styles between chronically heavy and light media multitaskers. A trait media multitasking index was developed to identify groups of heavy and light media multitaskers. These two groups were then compared along established cognitive control dimensions. Results showed that heavy media multitaskers are more susceptible to interference from irrelevant environmental stimuli and from irrelevant representations in memory. This led to the surprising result that heavy media multitaskers performed worse on a test of task-switching ability, likely due to reduced ability to filter out interference from the irrelevant task set. These results demonstrate that media multitasking, a rapidly growing societal trend, is associated with a distinct approach to fundamental information processing.
authors.affiliation: Symbolic Systems Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2050, USA.
authors.forename: Eyal
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Ophir
authors.forename: Clifford
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Nass
authors.forename: Anthony D
authors.initials: AD
authors.lastname: Wagner
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology; D003071:Cognition / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008568:Memory / Q000502:physiology; D008606:Mental Processes / Q000502:physiology; D019212:Multimedia; D010551:Personality; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D013647:Task Performance and Analysis; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Hum Brain Mapp. 1994;1(4):293-304
references.pmid: 24591198
references.citation: Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1996 Dec;53(12):1105-12
references.pmid: 8956676
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 Nov;31(6):1477-91
references.pmid: 16393058
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 May 2;103(18):7186-91
references.pmid: 16632612
references.citation: Nature. 2006 Jun 15;441(7095):876-9
references.pmid: 16778890
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1988 Oct;44(4):369-78
references.pmid: 3226885
references.citation: Neuron. 2006 Dec 21;52(6):1109-20
references.pmid: 17178412
references.citation: J Consult Psychol. 1956 Oct;20(5):343-50
references.pmid: 13367264
references.citation: J Abnorm Psychol. 1999 Feb;108(1):120-33
references.pmid: 10066998
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2006 Feb 1;26(5):1429-38
references.pmid: 16452666
references.citation: J Comp Neurol. 2005 Dec 5;493(1):99-110
references.pmid: 16254995
references.citation: Nature. 2005 Nov 24;438(7067):500-3
references.pmid: 16306992
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Jun;9(6):296-305
references.pmid: 15925809
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2000;63(3-4):212-33
references.pmid: 11004877
references.citation: PLoS One. 2007 Mar 28;2(3):e320
references.pmid: 17389911
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1994 Oct;20(5):1015-36
references.pmid: 7964527
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Aug 1;103(31):11778-83
references.pmid: 16868087
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Mar;7(3):134-140
references.pmid: 12639695
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1995 Jan;21(1):255-60
references.pmid: 7876773
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2001 Dec;130(4):746-63
references.pmid: 11757878