Comments on: Information overload? Heavy multimedia users are more easily distracted by irrelevant information

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:11:10 +0000

A good question. I actually asked Eyal something very similar in my original interview but it never made it into the text. So consider this a sort of DVD-style extra:
The question: Given that much filtering in the online world involves scanning text, do tasks involving rectangles and short letter strings truly reflect what happens when people consume multimedia?
The answer: This question is one that will always arise when dealing with laboratory studies. It’s similar to asking if the 100-yard dash is a good measure of physical fitness, as it doesn’t really mirror most people’s natural activity. The tests we ran are established tests of people’s ability to control, monitor, and manipulate stimuli in memory; we used them because they are so widely accepted in the field. We weren’t testing their ability to write while listening to music and having the television on, or to talk on the phone while surfing the web and maintaining an online chat. Each of these would only give us a very limited amount of information (specifically, what happens with that particular media combination). Instead, we went for tests of the most basic level of cognitive control activity. One thing to note, though, is that we didn’t limit ourselves to online activity; we looked at people who multitask with their phones, televisions, books, as well as computers and any other type of media. Rather than dictate what type of media multitasking they would do, we leveraged the multitasking they were naturally doing at home.

By: Arikia

Arikia — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:03:23 +0000

Who needs a whole nother monitor when there’s tab-switching via hotkeys?
The thing that gets me about these studies is that the experiment always uses a stimuli that is incredibly BORING to draw the conclusion. Like, why would someone with a short attention span care enough to pay attention to a bloody rectangle assortment when there is likely something more interesting going on in the room. Maybe if they would have asked the subject to remember how many velociraptors were in attack position (vs docile) or how many pictures of explosions there were, they would perform better.
If one were to extrapolate the results of this study to its consequences in the workplace, why should anyone care if people are getting less good at doing things that are boring and inane?

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:59:54 +0000

A massive monitor is a writer’s best friend. I can’t tell you how much time (and indeed paper) I save by being able to have a web browser, a PDF and a Word window open at the same time.

By: Stephen Curry

Stephen Curry — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:56:05 +0000

Hey Ed – don’t you think you might need another monitor…?

By: Jason R

Jason R — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:04:07 +0000

I’ve always felt that filtering out irrelevant information is one of the most important aspects of life in regards to conflict resolution and problem solving.

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:06:53 +0000

Eyal – thanks so much for taking the time to answer questions. Love it when scientists get involved in debates on their own research.
Btw, pls note that I very explicitly address the issue of causality (and not ascribing it) in the piece, as does Eyal in the quote he gave me. This study says nothing about the direction of the effect and I’ve been *very* careful in choosing words that don’ imply a direction.

By: Eyal Ophir

Eyal Ophir — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 06:15:59 +0000

Hi Hypatia, nails!
The issue of environmental validity always comes up with lab studies. Here, we addressed this issue by not having people deal with a very specific combination of media for a short time – such as MSNBC + MP3 + Twitter – but rather leveraging the multitasking they were already naturally doing habitually in their homes, and then simply having them come in to the lab to perform established tests of basic cognitive skills. So the manipulation they did themselves – we just measured the results. This means we can’t make causal claims – but we can be fairly certain that the multitasking they are doing is very realistic, and very valid.
As for ADD or ADHD – this was raised in the review process. To ensure that this was not the driving factor behind the findings, we tested both groups on a wide variety of measures that might separate individuals with these conditions. The groups were identical on every measure.
Hope this clears things up.

By: nails

nails — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:52:25 +0000

Perhaps I misunderstood but it seems like they took people who do a lot of multitasking to begin with and tested them. Sounds to me like the “heavy” group is full of people with attention deficit problems to begin with. I don’t think that it can be said that the multitasking caused the attention span issues so much as the attention span issues cause the multitasking. ADD is a pretty common problem.

By: Mr. Gunn

Mr. Gunn — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:08:32 +0000

Todd, you make good points. The fact that you feel you have to defend the idea that long-form media might have benefits or that short-form might have disadvantages certainly shows the kind of trouble you get into when you sensationalize an issue.

By: Hypatia Rizing

Hypatia Rizing — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:36:27 +0000

Does the study have environmental valididty? Were the subjects simultaneously exposed to MSNBC muted on the flatscreen, Feist on the mp3 player and Twitter on their iPhones?