Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32253711›Full record

ReviewScience and engineering ethics2020

The Internet as Cognitive Enhancement.

Cristina Voinea, Constantin Vică, Emilian Mihailov, Julian Savulescu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Science and engineering ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. AI & society · 2025
    Article
  3. Remote versus In-Person Health Education: Feasibility, Satisfaction, and Health Literacy for Diverse Older Adults.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Cristina VoineaDepartment of Philosophy and Social Sciences, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania.
Constantin VicăDepartment of Philosophy, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.
Emilian MihailovDepartment of Philosophy, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.
Julian SavulescuOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. julian.savulescu@philosophy.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Internet has been identified in human enhancement scholarship as a powerful cognitive enhancement technology. It offers instant access to almost any type of information, along with the ability to share that information with others. The aim of this paper is to critically assess the enhancement potential of the Internet. We argue that unconditional access to information does not lead to cognitive enhancement. The Internet is not a simple, uniform technology, either in its composition, or in its use. We will look into why the Internet as an informational resource currently fails to enhance cognition. We analyze some of the phenomena that emerge from vast, continual fluxes of information-information overload, misinformation and persuasive design-and show how they could negatively impact users' cognition. Methods for mitigating these negative impacts are then advanced: individual empowerment, better collaborative systems for sorting and categorizing information, and the use of artificial intelligence assistants that could guide users through the informational space of today's Internet.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCognitionInternetHumansPersuasive CommunicationTechnologyCognitive enhancementInformation overloadInternetMisinformationPersuasive design

Identifiers

PMID32253711
PMCPMC7417391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.