ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2026
Huh, what did they say again? The influence of task interruption position and workload on auditory-verbal memory performance.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The harmful effects of task interruptions on performance in discrete visual-manual reaction-time (RT) tasks are well investigated, but the impact on continuous auditory-verbal memory tasks has received comparably less attention. In the present study, the encoding phase of an auditory-verbal free recall task was interrupted by visual-manual RT tasks. To examine which factors influence the disruptiveness of an interruption during the encoding phase, we manipulated the cognitive workload (low vs. high) associated with the interruption task and the position (early vs. late) of the intervening interruption tasks. Moreover, we manipulated the central code (verbal vs. spatial) in the high-workload interruption task. Results showed decreased free recall with late and high-workload interruptions compared to early and low-workload interruptions. However, the variation of central codes did not influence free recall in the high-workload interruption task. We also examined task trade-offs and found worse performance in the interruption task itself compared to performing it as a single task. These results suggest that memory maintenance in the memory task interferes with response selection in the interruption task. Further, we assume that early interruptions of memory encoding are less harmful than later ones because less primary task information needs to be maintained during interruption task processing. Overall, our study revealed that task interruptions lead to information loss in auditory-verbal memory encoding, highlighting the importance of minimizing interruption costs in work environments where effective communication and information exchange are crucial.
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.