Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41414770›Full record

ArticleMedical education2026

Learning and distraction: Evidence for cognitive load interference in medical education.

Andrea Storck, Clemens Grahl Römer, Steffen Ansorge, Eva Schönefeld, Michelle Bellstedt, Birte Barbian, Martin Janssen, Konstantin E Seifert, Dogus Darici

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Andrea StorckDepartment of Urology, University Clinics Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID 0009-0004-1623-4626
Clemens Grahl RömerUniversity of Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID 0009-0002-3398-8898
Steffen AnsorgeBerlin University of Applied Sciences and Technology, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0009-0007-7288-975X
Eva SchönefeldInstitute of Education and Student Affairs, University of Münster, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9710-3767
Michelle BellstedtInstitute of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Münster, Germany.ORCID 0009-0001-3445-7928
Birte BarbianInstitute of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Münster, Germany.ORCID 0009-0004-1067-7987
Martin JanssenDepartment of Urology, University Clinics Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0833-2988
Konstantin E SeifertDepartment of Urology, University Clinics Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9109-9004
Dogus DariciInstitute of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Münster, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2375-8792

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDistraction may increase cognitive load. Cues may decrease it. But what happens if we cue in distracted learning environments? Does effective instruction buffer against the detrimental effects of distraction?

methodsIn a 2 × 2 factorial experiment, 117 s-year medical students without prior knowledge watched a standardised instructional video on abdominal ultrasound. Distraction was induced via a concurrent mental arithmetic task, and supportive cues were instructed via eye movement modelling examples of an expert's gaze. Image interpretation performance and cognitive load were measured before and after training.

resultsAs expected, cueing alone reduced extraneous cognitive load and improved learning. Distraction alone impaired learning. However, when both interventions were combined, the performance benefits of cueing disappeared. Distracted learners receiving cues performed no better than uncued distracted learners, indicating no compensatory effect. Thus, distraction not only weakened learning but blocked the effectiveness of instructional benefits.

conclusionsThe disappearance of instructional benefits under distraction suggests a load interference mechanism: Learners cannot benefit from helpful educational instructions when their working memory is already taxed by competing demands. Importantly, this blocking effect represents more than a simple additive effect-it demonstrates a qualitative breakdown where helpful instructional elements become ineffective rather than merely weakened. We discuss the implications for medical education in increasingly distraction-rich learning environments characterised by AI, smartphone notifications and electronic health record alerts.

Indexed as

AttentionCognitionEducation, MedicalEducation, Medical, UndergraduateLearningStudents, MedicalAdultCuesFemaleHumansMaleMemory, Short-TermYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41414770
PMCPMC13129625

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.