ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Distractions in digital reading: a meta-analysis of attentional interference effects.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The impact of social media use on college students' mental health: a narrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Digital reading has become a common learning activity; however, the empirical understanding of how attentional interference affects comprehension remains limited. Methods: This study employed a meta-analytic approach to synthesize 32 empirical studies investigating the effects of attentional distractors in digital environments. The analysis focused on the overall comprehension effects of attentional distraction in online reading contexts, while examining potential moderating variables including study design, type of attentional distraction, required effort, time control, type of article, participant age, reading device, and time of publication. Results: The research results indicate that Hedges' g is -0.6411, suggesting a negative effect of attentional interference in networked environments on reading comprehension. Moderation analysis further shows that factors such as research design, type of distraction, and educational level influence this effect, particularly in between-subject studies involving television (TV) or music distractions, where older readers experienced greater declines in comprehension. Conclusion: This study advances the understanding of the cognitive-neurological foundations of attention and cognitive load theory, emphasizing the limited capacity of attention in online environments and the need to balance cognitive load to improve reading comprehension. It encourages minimizing distractions such as background music and videos, designing interactive online platforms that promote focus and selfregulated learning, using tools such as eye-tracking to monitor attention, and implementing tailored interventions that help students develop effective selfregulation strategies for better comprehension.
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.