ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
When to Take a Break: Comparing Effects of Systematic Short (Pomodoro) and Self-Regulated Breaks on Subjective Experience and Actual Learning.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite the potential of break-taking to regulate study effort, mitigate fatigue, and increase positive affect during learning, few studies have experimentally investigated its effects on students' learning experiences and performance. This study investigates the effects of two break strategies, namely systematic short breaks (externally structured and predetermined, e.g., the "Pomodoro" technique) and self-regulated breaks (self-decision on when to take a break) on university students' fatigue, moods, learning outcomes and overall experience. One hundred seventy-six university students completed a reading task on climate change, during which they repeatedly rated their mood, took a comprehension test, and answered open-ended questions under one of two break conditions. The results revealed no significant difference in performance between the two break strategies, although the sensitivity of the performance measure may have been limited. Self-regulated breaks led to more positive moods, including higher energy, concentration, and motivation to study, and lower distraction. The study suggests that flexibility in break-taking may be important for tailoring break strategies to students' needs and specific learning tasks, while also indicating that the effectiveness of systematic breaks may depend on the specific timing and duration of the break schedule.
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.