Cited by 404Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsMemory Processes and Influences

Four Ways of Considering Emotion in Cognitive Load Theory

Plass, Jan L., Kalyuga, Slava·2019·Educational Psychology Review

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10648-019-09473-5

Cites

25 of 25 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
Plass, J. L., & Kalyuga, S.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Plass, Jan L.
  • Kalyuga, Slava
Venue
Educational Psychology Review
Published
2019-03-07
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
339-359
ISSN
  • 1040-726X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-336X
OpenAlex
W2922497623
Cited by
404
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 61 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 66 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 5
FWCI
38.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Educational Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
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
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
emotions, cognitive load theory, extraneous cognitive load, intrinsic cognitive load, working memory, emotion and memory, emotion regulation, motivation, cognitive effort

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