Cited by 153Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

Differentiating Different Types of Cognitive Load: a Comparison of Different Measures

Korbach, Andreas, Brünken, Roland, Park, Babette·2018·Educational Psychology Review

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10648-017-9404-8

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Korbach, A., Brünken, R., & Park, B.
Affiliations
Saarland University (DE)
Corresponding author
Korbach, Andreas
Venue
Educational Psychology Review
Published
2017-03-31
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
503-529
ISSN
  • 1040-726X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-336X
OpenAlex
W2598377908
Cited by
153
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 2
FWCI
16.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Educational Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
Funders
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01PL12057)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
cognitive load, extraneous cognitive load, germane cognitive load, seductive details, rhythm method, eye tracking, comprehension, transfer performance, cognitive load assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review