Notes lectures Cyberpsychology
Lecture 2 Brain & Cognition
Cognitive aspects of interactive technology use
Why interactive technology has impacted our brain and cognition:
In earlier generations we needed more supplies to travel for example than we need nowadays. Now we only
need a phone which contains alle the information we need to travel.
This causes a difference in how we use cognition; you may not develop certain cognitive skills. But it doesn’t
change the structure of the brain > evolutionary adaptations (brain organization is different because of
interactive technology we use).
It looks like internet use has a more negative effect on cognition and videogaming is more positive in regards to
cognitive abilities.
Effect of internet use on cognition
Features of internet use:
1. Multitasking (via hyperlinks and notifications) > shallow processing and task switching.
2. Portability and availability > cognitive offloading (= outsourcing cognitive abilities to external devices).
Ophir et al., 2009:
“Do chronic heavy multitaskers (HMM) process info differently than individuals who do not frequently multitask?
Specifically, are they more/less distracted by irrelevant stimuli?”
There are two groups in this experiment (divided based on a questionnaire, indicating how often they used one
medium (e.g., email) concurrently with other media (e.g., TV) > correlation with total media use):
1. Heavy media multitaskers (HMM).
2. Light media multitaskers (LMM).
The participants had to perform a filter task (measure filtering ability), in
which they had to indicate whether a target (red bar) changed orientation.
Independent variable = number of distractions (0 to 6).
Dependent variable = performance.
The results show that HMM have more difficulty with inhibiting more distractions.
The participants also had to perform a N-back memory task (i.e., performance task
that is used to measure part of working memory and memory capacity).
Independent variable: 2-back, 3-back.
Dependent variable: hit rate/FA rate.
,The results on the 2-back there is no difference between the HMM and the LMM, but on the 2-back HMM performed
worse than the LMM. So, HMM have an inability to filter distracting information in working memory.
Chronic heavy multitasker process
information differently as compared to individuals who do not frequently multitask: HMMs have greater difficulty
filtering out irrelevant stimuli from their environment (as seen in the filter task). HMMs are less likely to ignore
irrelevant representations in memory (2- and 3-back tasks).
HMMs breadth-biased media consumption behavior is mirrored by breadth-biased cognitive control.
HMMs have a bias toward exploratory rather than exploitative information processing.
Single versus multidevice multitasking.
Effects of internet use on memory and learning
Internet has become an external memory source that we can access at any time. How does this affect our (internal)
memory)?
Sparrow et al., 2011:
Experiment 1: “do we automatically think about internet when needing information?”.
Participants had to answer blocks of easy or hard yes/no questions. After that, they had to perform the
modified Stroop task (i.e., name the color of a word as quickly as possible, while disregarding the content of
the words) with computer versus general words.
It is harder to ignore words that are more accessible due to priming (i.e.,
influencing behavior with unconscious subtle signals). The results show that
computer words were harder to ignore after answering hard questions.
Experiment 2: “do we remember information differently when internet is
available?”
Participants had to read 40 trivia statements (e.g., “an ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain”) and typing into a
dialog box. There were 4 different groups of participants:
1. Group 1A: press spacebar to save what you typed.
2. Group 1B: press spacebar to save what you typed + remember.
3. Group 2A: press spacebar to erase what you typed.
4. Group 2B: press spacebar to erase what you types + remember.
,After this, participants had to perform a recall test in which they had to recall as many statements as possible in 10
minutes.
The results show that knowing that your answers will be erased makes
participants better in memorizing. Those who believed that the computer
erased what they types had the based recall. Explicit remember instructions
did not have an effect.
Memory is outsourced to the internet. Because search engines are
continually available to us, we may often be in a state of not feeling
we need to encode the information internally.
Knowing that we can look something up leads to poorer encoding.
Internet is similar to social forms of transactive memory (e.g., knowing that a colleague or partner knows
certain information).
However, this is at a massive scale, is unidirectional, and is always available.
Clark & Chalmers, 1998:
Where does the mind stop, and the rest of the world begin?
Inga (remembers street name) and Otto (writes the name of the street down in a notebook because of AD) visit
MoMa > “In these cases, the human organism is linked with an external entity in a two-way interaction,
creating a coupled system that can be seen as a cognitive system in its own right.”
Interactive technology has radically changed our life, and likely our mind/brain. Internet fosters multitasking, leading
to high distractibility (breadth versus depth). Availability of internet reduces memory consolidation (cognitive off-
loading).
Effects of video gaming on cognitive ability
There are many types of video games (e.g., slow-paced cerebral games versus frantic “button-mashers”). Most
research has investigated effects of playing action video games (e.g., first-person shooter games) with high attentional
demands.
Green & Bavelier, 2003:
They looked into whether video-game playing produces an increase in attentional capacity by searching an answer to
the question: “does videogame playing produce increase in attentional capacity?”.
They compared video-game players (VGPs) with non-videogame players (NVGPs). VGPSs played 1 hour a
day for 4 days a week over 6 months and NVGPs did not play any videogames.
They had to perform the flanker compatibility task (i.e., task that assesses the ability to suppress responses
that are inappropriate in a particular context). The target was either a square or a diamond and they had to
ignore the flanker, there were either 0, 1, 3, or 5 distractors.
, The results show that when the task is easy, there is a compatibility effect in both groups. When the task is hard, the
VGPs still showed the compatibility effect. This is interpreted as enhanced attentional resources (i.e., as if a task was
easy).
Compatibility effect occurs when there is a harmonious relation between what you observe and how you have
to respond to it.
Lecture 2 Brain & Cognition
Cognitive aspects of interactive technology use
Why interactive technology has impacted our brain and cognition:
In earlier generations we needed more supplies to travel for example than we need nowadays. Now we only
need a phone which contains alle the information we need to travel.
This causes a difference in how we use cognition; you may not develop certain cognitive skills. But it doesn’t
change the structure of the brain > evolutionary adaptations (brain organization is different because of
interactive technology we use).
It looks like internet use has a more negative effect on cognition and videogaming is more positive in regards to
cognitive abilities.
Effect of internet use on cognition
Features of internet use:
1. Multitasking (via hyperlinks and notifications) > shallow processing and task switching.
2. Portability and availability > cognitive offloading (= outsourcing cognitive abilities to external devices).
Ophir et al., 2009:
“Do chronic heavy multitaskers (HMM) process info differently than individuals who do not frequently multitask?
Specifically, are they more/less distracted by irrelevant stimuli?”
There are two groups in this experiment (divided based on a questionnaire, indicating how often they used one
medium (e.g., email) concurrently with other media (e.g., TV) > correlation with total media use):
1. Heavy media multitaskers (HMM).
2. Light media multitaskers (LMM).
The participants had to perform a filter task (measure filtering ability), in
which they had to indicate whether a target (red bar) changed orientation.
Independent variable = number of distractions (0 to 6).
Dependent variable = performance.
The results show that HMM have more difficulty with inhibiting more distractions.
The participants also had to perform a N-back memory task (i.e., performance task
that is used to measure part of working memory and memory capacity).
Independent variable: 2-back, 3-back.
Dependent variable: hit rate/FA rate.
,The results on the 2-back there is no difference between the HMM and the LMM, but on the 2-back HMM performed
worse than the LMM. So, HMM have an inability to filter distracting information in working memory.
Chronic heavy multitasker process
information differently as compared to individuals who do not frequently multitask: HMMs have greater difficulty
filtering out irrelevant stimuli from their environment (as seen in the filter task). HMMs are less likely to ignore
irrelevant representations in memory (2- and 3-back tasks).
HMMs breadth-biased media consumption behavior is mirrored by breadth-biased cognitive control.
HMMs have a bias toward exploratory rather than exploitative information processing.
Single versus multidevice multitasking.
Effects of internet use on memory and learning
Internet has become an external memory source that we can access at any time. How does this affect our (internal)
memory)?
Sparrow et al., 2011:
Experiment 1: “do we automatically think about internet when needing information?”.
Participants had to answer blocks of easy or hard yes/no questions. After that, they had to perform the
modified Stroop task (i.e., name the color of a word as quickly as possible, while disregarding the content of
the words) with computer versus general words.
It is harder to ignore words that are more accessible due to priming (i.e.,
influencing behavior with unconscious subtle signals). The results show that
computer words were harder to ignore after answering hard questions.
Experiment 2: “do we remember information differently when internet is
available?”
Participants had to read 40 trivia statements (e.g., “an ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain”) and typing into a
dialog box. There were 4 different groups of participants:
1. Group 1A: press spacebar to save what you typed.
2. Group 1B: press spacebar to save what you typed + remember.
3. Group 2A: press spacebar to erase what you typed.
4. Group 2B: press spacebar to erase what you types + remember.
,After this, participants had to perform a recall test in which they had to recall as many statements as possible in 10
minutes.
The results show that knowing that your answers will be erased makes
participants better in memorizing. Those who believed that the computer
erased what they types had the based recall. Explicit remember instructions
did not have an effect.
Memory is outsourced to the internet. Because search engines are
continually available to us, we may often be in a state of not feeling
we need to encode the information internally.
Knowing that we can look something up leads to poorer encoding.
Internet is similar to social forms of transactive memory (e.g., knowing that a colleague or partner knows
certain information).
However, this is at a massive scale, is unidirectional, and is always available.
Clark & Chalmers, 1998:
Where does the mind stop, and the rest of the world begin?
Inga (remembers street name) and Otto (writes the name of the street down in a notebook because of AD) visit
MoMa > “In these cases, the human organism is linked with an external entity in a two-way interaction,
creating a coupled system that can be seen as a cognitive system in its own right.”
Interactive technology has radically changed our life, and likely our mind/brain. Internet fosters multitasking, leading
to high distractibility (breadth versus depth). Availability of internet reduces memory consolidation (cognitive off-
loading).
Effects of video gaming on cognitive ability
There are many types of video games (e.g., slow-paced cerebral games versus frantic “button-mashers”). Most
research has investigated effects of playing action video games (e.g., first-person shooter games) with high attentional
demands.
Green & Bavelier, 2003:
They looked into whether video-game playing produces an increase in attentional capacity by searching an answer to
the question: “does videogame playing produce increase in attentional capacity?”.
They compared video-game players (VGPs) with non-videogame players (NVGPs). VGPSs played 1 hour a
day for 4 days a week over 6 months and NVGPs did not play any videogames.
They had to perform the flanker compatibility task (i.e., task that assesses the ability to suppress responses
that are inappropriate in a particular context). The target was either a square or a diamond and they had to
ignore the flanker, there were either 0, 1, 3, or 5 distractors.
, The results show that when the task is easy, there is a compatibility effect in both groups. When the task is hard, the
VGPs still showed the compatibility effect. This is interpreted as enhanced attentional resources (i.e., as if a task was
easy).
Compatibility effect occurs when there is a harmonious relation between what you observe and how you have
to respond to it.
