CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 122Embodied and Extended CognitionSpatial Cognition and NavigationCognitive Functions and Memory

Toward a Metacognitive Account of Cognitive Offloading

Open access
Dunn, Timothy L., Risko, Evan F.·2016·Cognitive Science
DOI 10.1111/cogs.12273
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Individuals frequently make use of the body and environment when engaged in a cognitive task. For example, individuals will often spontaneously physically rotate when faced with rotated objects, such as an array of words, to putatively offload the performance costs associated with stimulus rotation. We looked to further examine this idea by independently manipulating the costs associated with both word rotation and array frame rotation. Surprisingly, we found that individuals’ patterns of spontaneous physical rotations did not follow patterns of performance costs or benefits associated with being physically rotated, findings difficult to reconcile with existing theories of strategy selection involving external resources. Individuals’ subjective ratings of perceived benefits, rather, provided an excellent match to the patterns of physical rotations, suggesting that the critical variable when deciding on‐the‐fly whether to incorporate an external resource is the participant's metacognitive beliefs regarding expected performance or the effort required for each approach (i.e., internal vs. internal + external). Implications for metacognition's future in theories of cognitive offloading are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cogs.12273

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Several studies on issues besides learning and memory often show considerable advantages accrued using non-digital externalization.

    “with several studies on issues besides learning and memory often showing considerable advantages accrued using this strategy”

    From The Cognitive Architecture of Digital Externalization (2023) · cites this paper as Dunn & Risko, 2016

    Section 4.3 reports faster and more accurate performance when participants were forced to physically rotate toward the text, supporting an advantage of non-digital offloading outside a learning-and-memory task. But Section 3.3 says spontaneous rotation showed no observable performance benefit, and the other favorable example in Section 1.2 uses an on-screen calculator. The paper therefore does not establish that several studies show considerable advantages from non-digital externalization. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Research on non-digital forms of externalization demonstrates how deeply embedded the tendency of offloading is in humans.

    “research on non-digital forms of externalization is used to demonstrate how deeply embedded the tendency of offloading is in humans”

    From The Cognitive Architecture of Digital Externalization (2023) · cites this paper as Dunn & Risko, 2016

  • Externalization behavior does not necessarily align with actual benefits or costs, but rather with people's perceived benefits and costs of that behavior.

    “Dunn and Risko (2016) found that externalization behavior does not necessarily align with actual benefits or costs, but rather people's perceived benefits and costs of that behavior, therefore linking their choices to metacognition (though their studies did not investigate learning, but physical action).”

    From The Cognitive Architecture of Digital Externalization (2023) · cites this paper as Dunn and Risko (2016)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Clark, A. (2010). Supersizing the mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  2. T. L. Dunn, E. F. Risko / Cognitive Science 40 (2016) 15516709, 2016, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.12273 by Test, Wiley Online Library on [01/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Dunn, T. L., & Risko, E. F.
Affiliations
University of Waterloo (CA)
Corresponding author
Dunn, Timothy L.
ORCID
Venue
Cognitive Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-08-26
Volume
40
Issue
5
Pages
1080-1127
ISSN
  • 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
  • 1551-6709
DOI
10.1111/cogs.12273
OpenAlex
W1926849645
Cited by
122
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
cognitive offloading, metacognition, metacognitive beliefs, external resources, strategy selection, effort estimation
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Psychological Theory, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time

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