Using a smartphone while walking: The cost of smartphone-addiction proneness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distracted walking is an ever-increasing problem. Studies have already shown that using a smartphone while walking impairs attention and increases the risk of accidents. This study seeks to determine if smartphone-addiction proneness magnifies the risks of using a smartphone while walking. In an experimental design, participants, while walking on a treadmill and engaged in a smartphone task, were required to switch tasks by responding to an external stimulus, i.e., determining the direction of movement of a point-light walker. Participants were chosen to cover a range of smartphone-addiction proneness. Four smartphone-use conditions were simulated: a control condition with no smartphone-use, an individual conversation condition, a gaming condition, and a group conversation condition. Our results show that using a smartphone while walking decreases accuracy and increases the number of missed stimuli. Moreover, participants with higher smartphone-addiction proneness scores were also prone to missing more stimuli, and this effect was found regardless of experimental condition. The effect of the smartphone task on accuracy and the number of missed stimuli was mediated by the emotional arousal caused by the smartphone task. Smartphone-addiction proneness was positively correlated with a declared frequency of smartphone use while walking. Furthermore, of all the smartphone tasks, the gaming condition was found to be the most distracting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".