Reexamining the “Brain Drain” Effect: Does Ward et al. (2017) Replicate?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was a pre-registered direct replication of Ward et al.’s (2017) second experiment (OSF pre-registration found at: https://osf.io/5fq4r). This replication assigned both smartphone location (on desk, in pocket/bag, or outside of the testing room) and smartphone power (on, or off) for a total of six conditions. Participants completed an automated operation span (OSpan) task, a cue-dependent go/no-go task, and the smartphone attachment and dependency inventory. It was hypothesized that performance on an attention-demanding task (i.e., the OSpan task) would be worse for those in closer proximity to their smartphone (on desk) and that those with greater smartphone attachment and dependency would have a larger “brain drain” effect. Using the same tasks and conditions as in Ward et al.’s (2017) second experiment, the present study found that the “brain drain” effect did not replicate: there was no difference between smartphone location conditions on performance on either the o-span task or the go/no-go task. These findings demonstrate that the mere presence of one’s smartphone may not be enough to affect cognitive performance. Understanding these effects is crucial in a time where smartphones are a basic necessity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".