ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2026
Get the unbalance right: asymmetric transfer effects in cognitive offloading.
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
Abstract
Research has shown that cognitive offloading improves immediate performance in perception, short-term memory, and prospective memory, but also has negative side effects, such as poorer memory for offloaded information. However, the transfer-related consequences of cognitive offloading on subsequent performance are still largely unknown. In two experiments, we investigated these consequences in a planning task in which participants were asked to find the shortest route connecting locations on a map, given some constraints on the order of visit. Transfer designs were used to assess the effects of training with or without the opportunity to offload cognition on subsequent planning performance when this opportunity was removed or offered. In Experiment 1, participants were either allowed to use the pen while planning on the map and spontaneously devise offloading strategies or they were prevented from doing so. In Experiment 2, visual aids supporting the offloading strategies observed in Experiment 1 were embedded into the maps in some conditions and not in others. The results showed that the negative effect of offloading removal exceeded the positive effect of its introduction, supporting the hypothesis that the transition from a simpler and more intuitive visual planning strategy to a more demanding incremental planning strategy entails higher strategy switching costs and challenges reconfiguration processes more than the reverse transition. More generally, the results show that the opportunity to offload cognition in complex tasks can affect the strategies used by participants and this can have cognitive consequences for the subsequent adoption of different strategies when environmental conditions change.
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.