ArticleJournal of applied research in memory and cognition2024
What Impacts Endure: A Technologist's Notes on GPT's Impact on Expert Work.
Article in Journal of applied research in memory and cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychological dynamics and adaptive processes of negative online social interactions among university students: a qualitative study in higher education digital environments.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The voice of the plateau: a qualitative interview study of student management and educational practices in higher education in Xizang Autonomous Region.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Imundo et al. (2024) argue that (1) ChatGPT and other chatbots powered by generative Artificial Intelligence (genAI) models can enhance experts' cognition and training, and (2) these benefits are not equally distributed across all users. This commentary commends both arguments. I provide empirical evidence from the field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) to show that both statements hold true, not only with ChatGPT, but also with older computational technologies that mimic the behavioral expressions of expertise. By reinforcing Imundo et al. 's arguments, I also argue that now is an opportune time to pursue an even deeper understanding of the relation between ChatGPT and expertise. For instance, how might systems like ChatGPT influence or redefine what it means to be an expert? Rather than distinguishing cognitive, social, and physical expertise, could alternative taxonomies like generative versus evaluative abilities offer more insightful ways to study genAI's cognitive impact?
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.