Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background: Cognitive load is the amount of information one’s working memory can process at any given time. Key components of cognitive load include germane load, intrinsic load, and extraneous load. Learning is hindered if overload occurs, thus reducing cognitive performance. This study addresses the impact of auditory stimulation on cognitive load through repeated recognition tasks. Methods: Twenty-eight Queen’s University students were recruited and randomly allocated to control and experimental groups who completed the experiment with noise-cancelling headphones and with ambient noise, respectively. The experiment consisted of learning and testing phases. The learning phase involved memorizing a series of words. Subsequently, the testing phase required participants to recall words from the list. Each trial consisted of one learning and one testing phase, with three trials per participant. Cardiovascular measurements were taken prior to the experiment, at the beginning of each phase, and after each trial was completed. Results: Primary outcomes demonstrated that the experimental group experienced greater percent changes in heart rate and rate pressure product, higher perceived mental effort, and greater within-group variation for heart rate compared to controls. Scores decreased as trials progressed. Secondary outcomes showed that the top 33% of participants were less susceptible to changes in heart rate and blood pressure. Overall, four heart rate or blood pressure responders were identified. Conclusions: Exposure to 70 decibels of ambient noise contributes to cognitive load as noted by elevated cardiovascular measure and perceived mental effort. Results can inform educational platforms and hospital logistics.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".