Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42547742›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2026

Digital amnesia: The aftermath of a screenshot.

Sophia P Fabrizio, Rebecca Lurie, Deanne L Westerman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sophia P FabrizioDepartment of Psychology, Binghamton University, State University of New York, PO Box 6000, Binghamton, NY, 13902-6000, USA.
Rebecca LurieDepartment of Psychology, Binghamton University, State University of New York, PO Box 6000, Binghamton, NY, 13902-6000, USA.
Deanne L WestermanDepartment of Psychology, Binghamton University, State University of New York, PO Box 6000, Binghamton, NY, 13902-6000, USA. wester@binghamton.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The photo-taking impairment effect is the finding that memory is worse for photographed information compared with information that is merely viewed. Recently, this effect has been extended to smartphone screenshots, suggesting that the effect is related to digital capture more generally. One potential explanation for the impairment is based on the idea of cognitive offloading, which refers to a reliance on an external memory store to save information. Although previous evidence suggests that a conscious offloading strategy may not always be used, it is possible that associations between screenshots and offloading may precipitate an automatic, unconscious form of offloading. Such an account suggests that the costs associated with digital capture may be offset by benefits on other tasks due to redirected cognitive resources. Accordingly, the current study explored whether taking screenshots offers memory benefits as compared with simply viewing pieces of art. Seven preregistered experiments found that screenshotting led to pronounced memory costs, with no consistent benefits across four measures. Participants did not display improved source memory, improved recognition memory for subsequently presented items, or enhanced performance on a subsequent cognitive task compared with viewing alone. We found evidence of a modest boost in recall for a second block of art, but only under very specific experimental methods and when the memory test was scored very leniently. Overall, these findings suggest that screenshotting imposes considerable memory costs without offering compensatory benefits.

Indexed as

Cognitive offloadingMemoryPhoto-taking impairment effectScreenshots

Identifiers

PMID42547742

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.