research-article

Short-Form Videos Degrade Our Capacity to Retain Intentions: Effect of Context Switching On Prospective Memory

Authors:

Francesco Chiossi,

Luke Haliburton,

Andreas Martin Butz,

Albrecht SchmidtAuthors Info & Claims

CHI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Article No.: 30, Pages 1 - 15

https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580778

Published: 19 April 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Social media platforms use short, highly engaging videos to catch users’ attention. While the short-form video feeds popularized by TikTok are rapidly spreading to other platforms, we do not yet understand their impact on cognitive functions. We conducted a between-subjects experiment (N = 60) investigating the impact of engaging with TikTok, Twitter, and YouTube while performing a Prospective Memory task (i.e., executing a previously planned action). The study required participants to remember intentions over interruptions. We found that the TikTok condition significantly degraded the users’ performance in this task. As none of the other conditions (Twitter, YouTube, no activity) had a similar effect, our results indicate that the combination of short videos and rapid context-switching impairs intention recall and execution. We contribute a quantified understanding of the effect of social media feed format on Prospective Memory and outline consequences for media technology designers to not harm the users’ memory and wellbeing.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental Materials (3544548.3580778-supplemental-materials.zip)

Download
6.19 MB

MP4 File (3544548.3580778-video-preview.mp4)

Video Preview

Download
19.69 MB

MP4 File (3544548.3580778-talk-video.mp4)

Pre-recorded Video Presentation

Download
98.22 MB

References

[1]

Piotr D Adamczyk and Brian P Bailey. 2004. If not now, when? The effects of interruption at different moments within task execution. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 271–278. https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985727

Digital Library

[2]

Shamel Addas and Alain Pinsonneault. 2018. Theorizing the Multilevel Effects of Interruptions and the Role of Communication Technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 19, 11 (Nov. 2018). https://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol19/iss11/2

[3]

Philip A Allen, Mei-Ching Lien, Eric Ruthruff, and Andreas Voss. 2014. Multitasking and aging: do older adults benefit from performing a highly practiced task?Experimental aging research 40, 3 (2014), 280–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2014.896663

[4]

Erik M Altmann and Christian D Schunn. 2019. Integrating decay and interference: A new look at an old interaction. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Routledge, 65–70. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315782379-49

[5]

Erik M Altmann and J Gregory Trafton. 2002. Memory for goals: An activation-based model. Cognitive science 26, 1 (2002), 39–83. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2601_2

[6]

Erik M Altmann, J Gregory Trafton, and David Z Hambrick. 2014. Momentary interruptions can derail the train of thought.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143, 1 (2014), 215. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030986

[7]

B Hunter Ball and Andrew J Aschenbrenner. 2018. The importance of age-related differences in prospective memory: Evidence from diffusion model analyses. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 25, 3 (2018), 1114–1122. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1318-4

[8]

Dale J. Barr, Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers, and Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68, 3 (2013), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001

[9]

Russell J Boag, Luke Strickland, Shayne Loft, and Andrew Heathcote. 2019. Strategic attention and decision control support prospective memory in a complex dual-task environment. Cognition 191(2019), 103974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.05.011

[10]

Jesús Bobadilla, Fernando Ortega, Antonio Hernando, and Abraham Gutiérrez. 2013. Recommender systems survey. Knowledge-based systems 46 (2013), 109–132. https://doi.org/ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2013.03.012

Digital Library

[11]

C Dennis Boywitt and Jan Rummel. 2012. A diffusion model analysis of task interference effects in prospective memory. Memory & Cognition 40, 1 (2012), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0128-6

[12]

Gene A Brewer. 2011. Analyzing response time distributions: Methodological and theoretical suggestions for prospective memory researchers.Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology 219, 2(2011), 117. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000056

[13]

R. N. Brewer, M. R. Morris, and S. E. Lindley. 2017. How to Remember What to Remember: Exploring Possibilities for Digital Reminder Systems. 1, 3, Article 38 (sep 2017), 20 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3130903

Digital Library

[14]

Duncan P Brumby, Christian P Janssen, and Gloria Mark. 2019. How do interruptions affect productivity?In Rethinking productivity in software engineering. Springer, 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.11.003

Digital Library

[15]

Marc Brysbaert, Matthias Buchmeier, Markus Conrad, Arthur M Jacobs, Jens Bölte, and Andrea Böhl. 2011. The word frequency effect: a review of recent developments and implications for the choice of frequency estimates in German.Experimental psychology 58, 5 (2011), 412. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000123

[16]

Johannes L Busch, Femke S Haeussler, Frank Domahs, Lars Timmermann, Immo Weber, and Carina R Oehrn. 2022. German normative data with naming latencies for 283 action pictures and 600 action verbs. Behavior research methods 54, 2 (2022), 649–662. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01647-w

[17]

Zhuang Chen, Qian He, Zhifei Mao, Hwei-Ming Chung, and Sabita Maharjan. 2019. A study on the characteristics of douyin short videos and implications for edge caching. In Proceedings of the ACM Turing Celebration Conference-China. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3321408.3323082

Digital Library

[18]

Jan Chong and Rosanne Siino. 2006. Interruptions on software teams: a comparison of paired and solo programmers. In Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/1180875.1180882

Digital Library

[19]

Wesley C Clapp and Adam Gazzaley. 2012. Distinct mechanisms for the impact of distraction and interruption on working memory in aging. Neurobiology of aging 33, 1 (2012), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2010.01.012

[20]

Anna-Lisa Cohen and Jason L. Hicks. 2017. Characterization of Prospective Memory and Associated Processes. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68990-6_3

[21]

Michelle Colder Carras, Anna Kalbarczyk, Kurrie Wells, Jaime Banks, Rachel Kowert, Colleen Gillespie, and Carl Latkin. 2018. Connection, meaning, and distraction: A qualitative study of video game play and mental health recovery in veterans treated for mental and/or behavioral health problems. Social Science & Medicine 216 (Nov. 2018), 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.08.044

[22]

Giorgia Cona, Francesco Chiossi, Silvia Di Tomasso, Giovanni Pellegrino, Francesco Piccione, Patrizia Bisiacchi, and Giorgio Arcara. 2020. Theta and alpha oscillations as signatures of internal and external attention to delayed intentions: A magnetoencephalography (MEG) study. NeuroImage 205 (Jan. 2020), 116295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116295

[23]

Giorgia Cona, Cristina Scarpazza, Giuseppe Sartori, Morris Moscovitch, and Patrizia Silvia Bisiacchi. 2015. Neural bases of prospective memory: a meta-analysis and the “Attention to Delayed Intention”(AtoDI) model. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 52 (2015), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.02.007

[24]

Gabriel I Cook, J Thadeus Meeks, Arlo Clark-Foos, Paul S Merritt, and Richard L Marsh. 2014. The role of interruptions and contextual associations in delayed-execute prospective memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology 28, 1 (2014), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2960

[25]

Fergus I. M. Craik, Richard Govoni, Moshe Naveh-Benjamin, and Nicole D. Anderson. 1996. The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 125, 2 (1996), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.125.2.159

[26]

James Davidson, Benjamin Liebald, Junning Liu, Palash Nandy, Taylor Van Vleet, Ullas Gargi, Sujoy Gupta, Yu He, Mike Lambert, Blake Livingston, 2010. The YouTube video recommendation system. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Recommender systems. 293–296. https://doi.org/10.1145/1864708.1864770

Digital Library

[27]

R Key Dismukes. 2012. Prospective memory in workplace and everyday situations. Current Directions in Psychological Science 21, 4 (2012), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412447621

[28]

Rahul M Dodhia and Robert K Dismukes. 2009. Interruptions create prospective memory tasks. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 23, 1 (2009), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1441

[29]

Elmira Zahmat Doost and Wei Zhang. 2022. Mental workload variations during different cognitive office tasks with social media interruptions. Ergonomics 0, 0 (2022), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2022.2104381

[30]

Budmonde Duinkharjav, Praneeth Chakravarthula, Rachel Brown, Anjul Patney, and Qi Sun. 2022. Image Features Influence Reaction Time: A Learned Probabilistic Perceptual Model for Saccade Latency. ACM Trans. Graph. 41, 4, Article 144 (jul 2022), 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3528223.3530055

Digital Library

[31]

Gilles O Einstein and Mark A McDaniel. 2005. Prospective memory: Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science 14, 6 (2005), 286–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00382.x

[32]

Gilles O Einstein, Mark A McDaniel, Ruthann Thomas, Sara Mayfield, Hilary Shank, Nova Morrisette, and Jennifer Breneiser. 2005. Multiple processes in prospective memory retrieval: factors determining monitoring versus spontaneous retrieval.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 134, 3 (2005), 327. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.134.3.327

[33]

Gilles O. Einstein, Mark A. McDaniel, Ruthann Thomas, Sara Mayfield, Hilary Shank, Nova Morrisette, and Jennifer Breneiser. 2005. Multiple Processes in Prospective Memory Retrieval: Factors Determining Monitoring Versus Spontaneous Retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 134, 3 (2005), 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.134.3.327

[34]

Gilles O Einstein, Rebekah E Smith, Mark A McDaniel, and Pat Shaw. 1997. Aging and prospective memory: the influence of increased task demands at encoding and retrieval.Psychology and aging 12, 3 (1997), 479. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.12.3.479

[35]

Annie Beth Fox, Jonathan Rosen, and Mary Crawford. 2009. Distractions, distractions: does instant messaging affect college students’ performance on a concurrent reading comprehension task?CyberPsychology & Behavior 12, 1 (2009), 51–53. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0107

[36]

Scott T Frein, Samantha L Jones, and Jennifer E Gerow. 2013. When it comes to Facebook there may be more to bad memory than just multitasking. Computers in Human Behavior 29, 6 (2013), 2179–2182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.031

Digital Library

[37]

Brian A Gordon, Jill T Shelton, Julie M Bugg, Mark A McDaniel, and Denise Head. 2011. Structural correlates of prospective memory. Neuropsychologia 49, 14 (2011), 3795–3800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.09.035

[38]

Colin M. Gray, Yubo Kou, Bryan Battles, Joseph Hoggatt, and Austin L. Toombs. 2018. The Dark (Patterns) Side of UX Design. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174108

Digital Library

[39]

Yvonne C. T. Groot, Barbara A. Wilson, Jonathan Evans, and Peter Watson. 2002. Prospective memory functioning in people with and without brain injury. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 8, 5 (July 2002), 645–654. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617702801321

[40]

Ashish Gupta, Han Li, and Ramesh Sharda. 2013. Should I send this message? Understanding the impact of interruptions, social hierarchy and perceived task complexity on user performance and perceived workload. Decision Support Systems 55, 1 (2013), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.12.035

Digital Library

[41]

Melissa J Guynn. 2003. A two-process model of strategic monitoring in event-based prospective memory: Activation/retrieval mode and checking. International Journal of Psychology 38, 4 (2003), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590344000178

[42]

Melissa J. Guynn, Mark A. Mcdaniel, and Gilles O. Einstein. 1998. Prospective memory: When reminders fail. Memory & Cognition 26, 2 (March 1998), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201140

[43]

Dorothee Hefner and Peter Vorderer. 2016. Digital Stress: Permanent Connectedness and Multitasking. In The Routledge Handbook of Media Use and Well-Being: International Perspectives on Theory and Research on Positive Media Effects.Taylor & Francis, 484. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315714752

[44]

Alexis Hiniker, Sungsoo (Ray) Hong, Tadayoshi Kohno, and Julie A. Kientz. 2016. MyTime: Designing and Evaluating an Intervention for Smartphone Non-Use. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4746–4757. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858403

Digital Library

[45]

Yoolim Hong and Andrew Leber. 2016. Attentional disengagement suppresses visual long-term memory. Journal of Vision 16, 12 (2016), 1017–1017. https://doi.org/10.1167/16.12.1017

[46]

Sebastian S Horn, Ute J Bayen, and Rebekah E Smith. 2011. What can the diffusion model tell us about prospective memory?Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale 65, 1 (2011), 69. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022808

[47]

Andreas Ihle, Paolo Ghisletta, and Matthias Kliegel. 2017. Prospective memory and intraindividual variability in ongoing task response times in an adult lifespan sample: The role of cue focality. Memory 25, 3 (2017), 370–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1173705

[48]

Instagram. 2020. Introducing Instagram Reels. https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/introducing-instagram-reels-announcement

[49]

Chris Jaffe. 2020. Building YouTube Shorts, a new way to watch & create on YouTube. https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/building-youtube-shorts/

[50]

Theodor Jager and Matthias Kliegel. 2008. Time-based and event-based prospective memory across adulthood: Underlying mechanisms and differential costs on the ongoing task. The Journal of general psychology 135, 1 (2008), 4–22. https://doi.org/10.3200/GENP.135.1.4-22

[51]

Simon Kemp. 2022. Digital 2022: Global Overview Report. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-global-overview-report

[52]

Dagmar Kern, Paul Marshall, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2010. Gazemarks: gaze-based visual placeholders to ease attention switching. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2010). https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753646

Digital Library

[53]

Lia Kvavilashvili and Laura Fisher. 2007. Is time-based prospective remembering mediated by self-initiated rehearsals? Role of incidental cues, ongoing activity, age, and motivation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136, 1 (2007), 112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.112

[54]

Annie Lang, Robert F Potter, and Paul D Bolls. 1999. Something for nothing: Is visual encoding automatic?Media Psychology 1, 2 (1999), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0102_4

[55]

Robert Langner, Michael B Steinborn, Anjan Chatterjee, Walter Sturm, and Klaus Willmes. 2010. Mental fatigue and temporal preparation in simple reaction-time performance. Acta psychologica 133, 1 (2010), 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.10.001

[56]

Sophie Leroy. 2009. Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when switching between work tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 109, 2(2009), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.04.002

[57]

Sophie Leroy and Theresa M Glomb. 2018. Tasks interrupted: How anticipating time pressure on resumption of an interrupted task causes attention residue and low performance on interrupting tasks and how a “ready-to-resume” plan mitigates the effects. Organization Science 29, 3 (2018), 380–397. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1184

Digital Library

[58]

Sophie Leroy and Aaron M Schmidt. 2016. The effect of regulatory focus on attention residue and performance during interruptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 137 (2016), 218–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.07.006

[59]

Steson Lo and Sally Andrews. 2015. To transform or not to transform: Using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Frontiers in psychology 6 (2015), 1171. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01171

[60]

Sara A Lu, Christopher D Wickens, Julie C Prinet, Shaun D Hutchins, Nadine Sarter, and Angelia Sebok. 2013. Supporting interruption management and multimodal interface design: Three meta-analyses of task performance as a function of interrupting task modality. Human factors 55, 4 (2013), 697–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872081347629

[61]

Kai Lukoff, Ulrik Lyngs, Himanshu Zade, J Vera Liao, James Choi, Kaiyue Fan, Sean A Munson, and Alexis Hiniker. 2021. How the design of youtube influences user sense of agency. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445467

Digital Library

[62]

Kai Lukoff, Cissy Yu, Julie Kientz, and Alexis Hiniker. 2018. What Makes Smartphone Use Meaningful or Meaningless?2, 1 (2018), 26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3191754

Digital Library

[63]

Ludmila Lupinacci. 2020. ‘Absentmindedly scrolling through nothing’: liveness and compulsory continuous connectedness in social media. Media, Culture & Society (July 2020), 0163443720939454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720939454

[64]

Ulrik Lyngs, Kai Lukoff, Petr Slovak, Reuben Binns, Adam Slack, Michael Inzlicht, Max Van Kleek, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2019. Self-control in cyberspace: Applying dual systems theory to a review of digital self-control tools. In proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300361

Digital Library

[65]

Gloria Mark, Daniela Gudith, and Ulrich Klocke. 2008. The cost of interrupted work: More speed and stress. 107–110. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357072

Digital Library

[66]

Jeremy Marty-Dugas, Brandon Ralph, Jonathan Oakman, and Daniel Smilek. 2018. The Relation Between Smartphone Use and Everyday Inattention. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice 5 (March 2018). https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000131

[67]

Bernard R McCoy. 2016. Digital distractions in the classroom phase II: Student classroom use of digital devices for non-class related purposes. (2016).

[68]

Mark A. McDaniel and Gilles O. Einstein. 2007. Prospective Memory: An Overview and Synthesis of an Emerging Field. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452225913

[69]

Mark A McDaniel, Gilles O Einstein, Thomas Graham, and Erica Rall. 2004. Delaying execution of intentions: Overcoming the costs of interruptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 18, 5 (2004), 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1002

[70]

Mark A McDaniel, Gilles O Einstein, Amy C Stout, and Zack Morgan. 2003. Aging and maintaining intentions over delays: do it or lose it.Psychology and Aging 18, 4 (2003), 823. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.18.4.823

[71]

Mark A. McDaniel, Melissa J. Guynn, Gilles O. Einstein, and Jennifer Breneiser. 2004. Cue-Focused and Reflexive-Associative Processes in Prospective Memory Retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30, 3(2004), 605–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.605

[72]

Daniel C McFarlane and Kara A Latorella. 2002. The scope and importance of human interruption in human-computer interaction design. Human-Computer Interaction 17, 1 (2002), 1–61. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327051HCI1701_1

Digital Library

[73]

Deborah Mcgann, Judi A Ellis, and Alan Milne. 2002. Conceptual and perceptual processes in prospective remembering: Differential influence of attentional resources. Memory & cognition 30, 7 (2002), 1021–1032. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194320

[74]

Xiongkuo Min, Guangtao Zhai, Jiantao Zhou, Xiao-Ping Zhang, Xiaokang Yang, and Xinping Guan. 2020. A multimodal saliency model for videos with high audio-visual correspondence. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 29 (2020), 3805–3819. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2020.2966082

Digital Library

[75]

Lucia Monacis, Valeria de Palo, Mark D. Griffiths, and Maria Sinatra. 2017. Social networking addiction, attachment style, and validation of the Italian version of the Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale. Journal of Behavioral Addictions 6, 2 (June 2017), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.6.2017.023

[76]

Christopher A Monk and David G Kidd. 2008. The effects of brief interruptions on task resumption. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 52. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 403–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120805200443

[77]

Christopher A Monk, J Gregory Trafton, and Deborah A Boehm-Davis. 2008. The effect of interruption duration and demand on resuming suspended goals.Journal of experimental psychology: Applied 14, 4 (2008), 299. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014402

[78]

Christian Montag, Haibo Yang, and Jon D Elhai. 2021. On the psychology of TikTok use: A first glimpse from empirical findings. Frontiers in public health 9 (2021), 641673. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.641673

[79]

Phillip L Morgan, John Patrick, Samuel M Waldron, Sophia L King, and Tanya Patrick. 2009. Improving memory after interruption: Exploiting soft constraints and manipulating information access cost.Journal of experimental psychology: Applied 15, 4 (2009), 291. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018008

[80]

Michael A Nees and Anjali Fortna. 2015. A comparison of human versus virtual interruptions. Ergonomics 58, 5 (2015), 852–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.990934

[81]

Brid O’Conaill and David Frohlich. 1995. Timespace in the workplace: Dealing with interruptions. In Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems. 262–263. https://doi.org/10.1145/223355.223665

Digital Library

[82]

Greg R Oldham, Carol T Kulik, and Lee P Stepina. 1991. Physical environments and employee reactions: effects of stimulus-screening skills and job complexity. Academy of Management Journal 34, 4 (1991), 929–938. https://doi.org/10.5465/256397

[83]

Jonathan W Peirce. 2007. PsychoPy—psychophysics software in Python. Journal of neuroscience methods 162, 1-2 (2007), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017

[84]

Heng Peng and Ying Lu. 2012. Model selection in linear mixed effect models. Journal of Multivariate Analysis 109 (2012), 109–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmva.2012.02.005

Digital Library

[85]

Thomas E Powell, Hajo G Boomgaarden, Knut De Swert, and Claes H de Vreese. 2019. Framing fast and slow: A dual processing account of multimodal framing effects. Media Psychology 22, 4 (2019), 572–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2018.1476891

[86]

Roger Ratcliff. 1978. A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review 85(1978), 59–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59

[87]

Roger Ratcliff. 2013. Parameter variability and distributional assumptions in the diffusion model.Psychological review 120, 1 (2013), 281. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030775

[88]

Nornadiah Mohd Razali, Yap Bee Wah, 2011. Power comparisons of shapiro-wilk, kolmogorov-smirnov, lilliefors and anderson-darling tests. Journal of statistical modeling and analytics 2, 1 (2011), 21–33.

[89]

Franziska R. Richter and Nick Yeung. 2012. Memory and Cognitive Control in Task Switching. Psychological Science 23, 10 (Oct. 2012), 1256–1263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612444613 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.

[90]

Scott Rogers. 2014. Level Up! The Guide to Great Video Game Design. John Wiley & Sons. Google-Books-ID: UT5jAwAAQBAJ.

[91]

Jan Rummel, Beatrice G Kuhlmann, and Dayna R Touron. 2013. Performance predictions affect attentional processes of event-based prospective memory. Consciousness and cognition 22, 3 (2013), 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.04.012

[92]

Jan Rummel, Ann-Katrin Wesslein, and Thorsten Meiser. 2017. The role of action coordination for prospective memory: Task-interruption demands affect intention realization.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 43, 5(2017), 717. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000334

[93]

Penelope M Sanderson and Tobias Grundgeiger. 2015. How do interruptions affect clinician performance in healthcare? Negotiating fidelity, control, and potential generalizability in the search for answers. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 79 (2015), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.11.003

Digital Library

[94]

Premjit K Sanjram and Khan Azizuddin. 2010. Attention and programmer characteristics in prospective memory: an investigation of habit intrusion error in programmer multitasking. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. 307–310. https://doi.org/10.1145/1962300.1962365

Digital Library

[95]

Farzan Sasangohar, Birsen Donmez, Patricia Trbovich, and Anthony C Easty. 2012. Not all interruptions are created equal: positive interruptions in healthcare. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 56. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 824–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/10711813125611

[96]

Daniel L. Schacter. 2012. Constructive memory: past and future. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience 14, 1 (March 2012), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2012.14.1/dschacter

[97]

Hendrik Schulze. 2003. MEMOS: an interactive assistive system for prospective memory deficit compensation-architecture and functionality. In Proceedings of the 6th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility(Assets ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1145/1028630.1028645

Digital Library

[98]

Michael K. Scullin, Mark A. McDaniel, Jill T. Shelton, and Ji Hae Lee. 2010. Focal/nonfocal cue effects in prospective memory: Monitoring difficulty or different retrieval processes?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 36, 3(2010), 736–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018971

[99]

Neika Sharifian and Laura B Zahodne. 2021. Daily associations between social media use and memory failures: The mediating role of negative affect. The Journal of general psychology 148, 1 (2021), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2020.1743228

[100]

Jill Talley Shelton, Michael K Scullin, and Jessica Y Hacker. 2019. The multiprocess framework: Historical context and the “dynamic” extension. In Prospective memory. Routledge, 10–26. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351000154

[101]

Maxwell Shinn, Norman H Lam, and John D Murray. 2020. A flexible framework for simulating and fitting generalized drift-diffusion models. ELife 9(2020), e56938. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56938

[102]

Cornelia Sindermann, Jon D Elhai, and Christian Montag. 2020. Predicting tendencies towards the disordered use of Facebook’s social media platforms: On the role of personality, impulsivity, and social anxiety. Psychiatry Research 285(2020), 112793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112793

[103]

Rebekah E Smith. 2003. The cost of remembering to remember in event-based prospective memory: investigating the capacity demands of delayed intention performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29, 3(2003), 347. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.347

[104]

Rebekah E Smith. 2008. Connecting the past and the future: Attention, memory, and delayed intentions.(2008).

[105]

Rebekah E Smith. 2010. What costs do reveal and moving beyond the cost debate: Reply to Einstein and McDaniel (2010).(2010). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019183

[106]

Rebekah E Smith, Sebastian S Horn, and Ute J Bayen. 2012. Prospective memory in young and older adults: The effects of ongoing-task load. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition 19, 4 (2012), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2013.827150

[107]

Rebekah E Smith, R Reed Hunt, Jennifer C McVay, and Melissa D McConnell. 2007. The cost of event-based prospective memory: salient target events.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33, 4(2007), 734. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.734

[108]

Rebekah E Smith and Shayne Loft. 2014. Investigating the cost to ongoing tasks not associated with prospective memory task requirements. Consciousness and cognition 27 (2014), 1–13.

[109]

J. B. Spira and J. B. Feintuch. 2005. The cost of not paying attention: How interruptions impact knowledge worker productivity. New York, NY: Basex. Technical Report. Basex Inc, New York, NY. 21 pages. http://iorgforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/CostOfNotPayingAttention.BasexReport1.pdf

[110]

Luke Strickland, Shayne Loft, and Andrew Heathcote. 2019. Evidence accumulation modeling of event-based prospective memory. In Prospective Memory. Routledge, 78–94.

[111]

Nađa Terzimehić, Luke Haliburton, Philipp Greiner, Albrecht Schmidt, Heinrich Hussmann, and Ville Mäkelä. 2022. MindPhone: Mindful Reflection at Unlock Can Reduce Absentminded Smartphone Use. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference(DIS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1818–1830. https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3533575

Digital Library

[112]

Esther Thorson and Annie Lang. 1988. The effects of videographic complexity on memory for televised information. International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA (1988).

[113]

Melina R Uncapher, Lin Lin, Larry D Rosen, Heather L Kirkorian, Naomi S Baron, Kira Bailey, Joanne Cantor, David L Strayer, Thomas D Parsons, and Anthony D Wagner. 2017. Media multitasking and cognitive, psychological, neural, and learning differences. Pediatrics 140, Supplement_2 (2017), S62–S66. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1758D

[114]

Don van Ravenzwaaij, Rei Monden, Jorge N Tendeiro, and John Ioannidis. 2019. Bayes factors for superiority, non-inferiority, and equivalence designs. BMC medical research methodology 19, 1 (2019), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0699-7

[115]

Mikkel C. Vinding, Jonas Kristoffer Lindeløv, Yahui Xiao, Raymond C. K. Chan, and Thomas Alrik Sørensen. 2021. Volition in prospective Memory: Evidence against differences between free and fixed target events. Consciousness and Cognition 94 (Sep 2021), 103175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2021.103175

[116]

Andreas Voss and Jochen Voss. 2008. A fast numerical algorithm for the estimation of diffusion model parameters. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 52, 1 (2008), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2007.09.005

[117]

Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Roger Ratcliff, Pablo Gomez, and Gail McKoon. 2008. A diffusion model account of criterion shifts in the lexical decision task. Journal of memory and language 58, 1 (2008), 140–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.04.006

[118]

Yao Wang and Manuel A. Pérez-Quiñones. 2014. Exploring the role of prospective memory in location-based reminders. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct Publication(UbiComp ’14 Adjunct). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1373–1380. https://doi.org/10.1145/2638728.2641718

Digital Library

[119]

Henry H Wilmer, Lauren E Sherman, and Jason M Chein. 2017. Smartphones and cognition: A review of research exploring the links between mobile technology habits and cognitive functioning. Frontiers in psychology 8 (2017), 605. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00605

[120]

Lisa Wirz and Lars Schwabe. 2020. Prioritized attentional processing: Acute stress, memory and stimulus emotionality facilitate attentional disengagement. Neuropsychologia 138(2020), 107334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107334

[121]

Jacob O. Wobbrock, Leah Findlater, Darren Gergle, and James J. Higgins. 2011. The Aligned Rank Transform for Nonparametric Factorial Analyses Using Only Anova Procedures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 143–146. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978963

Digital Library

[122]

Neil Yorke-Smith, Shahin Saadati, Karen L Myers, and David N Morley. 2009. Like an intuitive and courteous butler: A proactive personal agent for task management. In Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 1. 337–344. https://doi.org/10.5555/1558013.1558059

Digital Library

[123]

Jing Zeng, Chrystal Abidin, and Mike S Schäfer. 2021. Research perspectives on TikTok and its legacy apps: introduction. International Journal of Communication 15 (2021), 3161–3172. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-205427

[124]

Jie Zhang, Tongtong Xue, Shaobo Liu, and Zhijie Zhang. 2022. Heavy and light media multitaskers employ different neurocognitive strategies in a prospective memory task: An ERP study. Computers in Human Behavior 135 (2022), 107379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107379

Digital Library

[125]

Mengyu Zheng. 2021. Influence of Short Video Watching Behaviors on Visual Short-Term Memory. Atlantis Press, 1855–1859. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211220.314

Cited By

Stoletov A(2024)Negative Impacts of the High-Tech Implementation in the Russian Higher Education SectorDiscourse10.32603/2412-8562-2024-10-2-5-1710:2(5-17)Online publication date: 23-Apr-2024
https://doi.org/10.32603/2412-8562-2024-10-2-5-17
David MRoberts J(2024)TikTok Brain: An Investigation of Short-Form Video Use, Self-Control, and PhubbingSocial Science Computer Review10.1177/08944393241279422Online publication date: 29-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393241279422
Chiossi FGruenefeld UHou BNewn JOu CLiao RWelsch RMayer S(2024)Understanding the Impact of the Reality-Virtuality Continuum on Visual Search Using Fixation-Related Potentials and Eye Tracking FeaturesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36765288:MHCI(1-33)Online publication date: 24-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3676528
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Short-Form Videos Degrade Our Capacity to Retain Intentions: Effect of Context Switching On Prospective Memory
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Ubiquitous and mobile computing
    1. Empirical studies in ubiquitous and mobile computing
    2. Ubiquitous and mobile devices
      1. Smartphones

Recommendations

PENCODER: Design for Prospective Memory and Older Adults
CHI EA '21: Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

The number of older adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is rapidly increasing. Individuals with this condition suffer from reduced daily activities and capacities, the resulting sense of frustration, and a decline in mental and physical health. ...
Keepin' it Reel: Investigating how Short Videos on TikTok and Instagram Reels Influence View Change
CHIIR '24: Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval

Novel short video platforms such as TikTok and Instagram Reels often entertain, can inform and may persuade. Recent human-information interaction research has demonstrated the potential for information encounters on social media to sow the seeds of view ...
Ignore the Affordances; It's the Social Norms: How Millennials and Gen-Z Think About Where to Make a Post on Social Media
CSCW

How do Millennial and Gen-Z young adults decide between competing social media when choosing where to post? Previous research argues that decisions can be modeled based on these users' Goals, and the Affordances, Features1, and Social Norms of those ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CHI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 2023

14911 pages

ISBN:9781450394215

DOI:10.1145/3544548

Editors:
Albrecht Schmidt
LMU Munich, Germany60028717
,
Kaisa Väänänen
Tampere University, Finland60011170
,
Tesh Goyal
Google Research, USA60006191
,
Per Ola Kristensson
University of Cambridge, UK60031101
,
Anicia Peters
University of Namibia, Namibia60072704
,
Stefanie Mueller
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA60022195
,
Julie R. Williamson
University of Glasgow, UK60001490
,
Max L. Wilson
University of Nottingham, UK60015138

Copyright © 2023 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 19 April 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

DFG

Conference

CHI '23

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

CHI '23: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 23 - 28, 2023

Hamburg, Germany

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

9
Total Citations
View Citations
2,293
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)1,786
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)223

Reflects downloads up to 21 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Stoletov A(2024)Negative Impacts of the High-Tech Implementation in the Russian Higher Education SectorDiscourse10.32603/2412-8562-2024-10-2-5-1710:2(5-17)Online publication date: 23-Apr-2024
https://doi.org/10.32603/2412-8562-2024-10-2-5-17
David MRoberts J(2024)TikTok Brain: An Investigation of Short-Form Video Use, Self-Control, and PhubbingSocial Science Computer Review10.1177/08944393241279422Online publication date: 29-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393241279422
Chiossi FGruenefeld UHou BNewn JOu CLiao RWelsch RMayer S(2024)Understanding the Impact of the Reality-Virtuality Continuum on Visual Search Using Fixation-Related Potentials and Eye Tracking FeaturesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36765288:MHCI(1-33)Online publication date: 24-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3676528
Van Daele TIyer AZhang YDerry JHuh MPavel A(2024)Making Short-Form Videos Accessible with Hierarchical Video SummariesProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642839(1-17)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642839
Haliburton LGrüning DRiedel FSchmidt ATerzimehić N(2024)A Longitudinal In-the-Wild Investigation of Design Frictions to Prevent Smartphone OveruseProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642370(1-16)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642370
Bunza R(2024)Duration-Based Investigation of User Content Choices in the Exit of Filter Bubbles2024 International Congress on Human-Computer Interaction, Optimization and Robotic Applications (HORA)10.1109/HORA61326.2024.10550588(1-8)Online publication date: 23-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/HORA61326.2024.10550588
Terzimehic NBemmann FHalsner MMayer S(2023)A Mixed-Method Exploration into the Mobile Phone Rabbit HoleProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36042417:MHCI(1-29)Online publication date: 13-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3604241
Schneegass CWilson MMaior HChiossi FCox AWiese J(2023)The Future of Cognitive Personal InformaticsProceedings of the 25th International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/3565066.3609790(1-5)Online publication date: 26-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3565066.3609790
Salehi PSuhail-Sindhu TSalehi P(2023)Re: “Analysis of Online Videos on Facial Feminization Surgery: What Are Patients Watching on TikTok and YouTube?” by Ziltzer et al: Concerns Regarding Proliferation of Social Media (Especially TikTok) As a Source of Facial Feminization Surgery InformationFacial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine10.1089/fpsam.2023.009225:6(530-530)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2023
https://doi.org/10.1089/fpsam.2023.0092

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Full Text

View this article in Full Text.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View full text|Download PDF

View Table of Contents