ReviewBrain sciences2026
Science Is About Thinking: How Can We Protect Thinking Time in a Distracted Digital World?
Review in Brain sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protocol paper: Evaluating the effect of isometric handgrip exercise on cognitive fatigue while solving logical reasoning questions.MethodsX · 2026Article
- Music and Exercise in Concert: Uncovering Synergistic Mechanisms for Enhancing Brain Health and Cognitive Resilience-A Narrative Review.Brain and behavior · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsRapid digital transformation has generated pervasive attentional disruption in research and professional settings, raising the question of how the temporal conditions that support deep scientific thinking can be preserved. Our narrative review aimed to (i) synthesize neurobiological evidence on the mechanisms through which task-irrelevant digital interruption impairs deep thinking; (ii) discuss the conditions required for deep thinking and the potential threats posed by contemporary developments, including generative artificial intelligence-related cognitive offloading; and (iii) elaborate evidence-based, multi-level recommendations for research institutions.
methodsTargeted searches of PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science (January 2010-September 2025) were conducted using terms spanning attentional neuroscience, digital distraction, neuroplasticity, and cognitive performance, supplemented by forward and backward citation tracking. Peer-reviewed empirical studies, meta-analyses, and theoretical frameworks addressing neurobiological mechanisms of sustained attention and the cognitive effects of digital interruption in professional and/or research settings were included. RESULTS AND
interpretationDeep thinking and protected thinking time are treated as distinct constructs: the former as a sustained, integrative cognitive process supported by coordinated executive control and default mode network activity, the latter as uninterrupted temporal intervals within which that process can occur. Repeated engagement with task-irrelevant digital stimuli is associated with cortico-striatal strengthening and prefrontal-parietal under-consolidation, producing a plasticity paradox in which attentional fragmentation becomes self-reinforcing. The emergence of generative artificial intelligence introduces a qualitatively distinct threat through voluntary cognitive offloading, which reduces deep engagement independently of attentional distraction.
conclusionsEvidence-based strategies spanning individual, team, organizational, technological, and assessment levels are available to preserve protected thinking time. Direct evidence linking these intervals to specific research-impact outcomes remains limited, and institutional interventions should be prospectively evaluated.
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.