ArticleMedical education2026
Learning and distraction: Evidence for cognitive load interference in medical education.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Point-of-care ultrasound tele-didactic teaching for prehospital emergency personnel (POCUS TT study): a randomized non-inferiority trial.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- AI System Usability and Learning Engagement in Nursing Simulation: Cross-Sectional Statistical Indirect Associations Through Extraneous Cognitive Load and Flow Experience.Nursing open · 2026Article
- Learning and distraction: Evidence for cognitive load interference in medical education.Medical education · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.