CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 107Embodied and Extended CognitionHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyPersonal Information Management and User Behavior

Supporting Cognition With Modern Technology: Distributed Cognition Today and in an AI-Enhanced Future

Open access
Grinschgl, Sandra, Neubauer, Aljoscha C.·2022·Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
DOI 10.3389/frai.2022.908261PMC PMC9329671
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In the present article, we explore prospects for using artificial intelligence (AI) to distribute cognition via cognitive offloading (i.e., to delegate thinking tasks to AI-technologies). Modern technologies for cognitive support are rapidly developing and increasingly popular. Today, many individuals heavily rely on their smartphones or other technical gadgets to support their daily life but also their learning and work. For instance, smartphones are used to track and analyze changes in the environment, and to store and continually update relevant information. Thus, individuals can offload (i.e., externalize) information to their smartphones and refresh their knowledge by accessing it. This implies that using modern technologies such as AI empowers users via offloading and enables them to function as always-updated knowledge professionals, so that they can deploy their insights strategically instead of relying on outdated and memorized facts. This AI-supported offloading of cognitive processes also saves individuals' internal cognitive resources by distributing the task demands into their environment. In this article, we provide (1) an overview of empirical findings on cognitive offloading and (2) an outlook on how individuals' offloading behavior might change in an AI-enhanced future. More specifically, we first discuss determinants of offloading such as the design of technical tools and links to metacognition. Furthermore, we discuss benefits and risks of cognitive offloading. While offloading improves immediate task performance, it might also be a threat for users' cognitive abilities. Following this, we provide a perspective on whether individuals will make heavier use of AI-technologies for offloading in the future and how this might affect their cognition. On one hand, individuals might heavily rely on easily accessible AI-technologies which in return might diminish their internal cognition/learning. On the other hand, individuals might aim at enhancing their cognition so that they can keep up with AI-technologies and will not be replaced by them. Finally, we present own data and findings from the literature on the assumption that individuals' personality is a predictor of trust in AI. Trust in modern AI-technologies might be a strong determinant for wider appropriation and dependence on these technologies to distribute cognition and should thus be considered in an AI-enhanced future.

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 · 10.3389/frai.2022.908261

Cites

12 of 12 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?

  • When AI functions as a substitution, it entirely replaces the internal cognitive architecture of the learner.

    “Conversely, when AI functions as a substitution, it entirely replaces the internal cognitive architecture of the learner.”

    From The Double-Edged Sword of Automation: Impact of Generative AI Adoption on Student's Critical Thinking Skills in Higher Education Considering Cognitive Offloading as a Mediator (2026) · cites this paper as Grinschgl & Neubauer, 2022

    The Outlook on Distributed Cognition in an AI-Enhanced Future (page unavailable) says learners use tools to distribute cognitive demands across internal and external resources, not to replace their internal cognition entirely. It also notes that offloading need not harm long-term memory when learners are instructed to memorize information internally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • AI as a scaffold acts as an external supportive framework that in the short term offsets lower-level cognitive tasks and improves instantaneous task performance.

    “In terms of scaffold, AI acts as an external supportive framework that in the short term offsets lower-level cognitive tasks, that improves instantaneous task performance, and in terms of Substitution its influence be a threat for user's cognitive abilities.( Grinschgl & Neubauer, 2022).”

    From The Double-Edged Sword of Automation: Impact of Generative AI Adoption on Student's Critical Thinking Skills in Higher Education Considering Cognitive Offloading as a Mediator (2026) · cites this paper as Grinschgl & Neubauer, 2022

    The Overview of Cognitive Offloading with Modern Technologies (page not specified) says offloading can improve immediate task performance and free internal cognitive resources. But the Outlook on Distributed Cognition in an AI-Enhanced Future (page not specified) says those studies did not test AI tools; it presents AI offloading as a prospect, not an established performance effect. The paper also does not limit the offloaded tasks to lower-level cognition. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 40

  1. Armitage K. L. Bulley A. Redshaw J. (2020). Developmental origins of cognitive offloading. Proc. R. Soc. B 287: 20192927. 10.1098/rspb.2019.2927 32517613 PMC7341915 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Arreola H. Flores A. N. Latham A. MacNew H. Vu K.-P. L. (2019). Does the use of tablets lead to more information being recorded and better recall in short-term memory tasks? In: Proceedings of the 21st HCI International Conference, Human Interface and Management of Information Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-030-22660-2_20 · DOI
  3. Boldt A. Gilbert S. (2019). Confidence guides spontaneous cognitive offloading. Cognit. Res. 4: 45. 10.1186/s41235-019-0195-y 31792746 PMC6889107 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bostrom N. Sandberg A. (2009). Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Sci. Eng. Ethics 15, 311– 341. 10.1007/s11948-009-9142-5 19543814 · DOI
  5. Cary M. Carlson R. A. (2001). Distributing working memory resources during problem solving. J. Experi. Psychol. 27, 836– 848. 10.1037/0278-7393.27.3.836 11394683 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Cecutti L. Chemero A. Lee S. W. S. (2021). Technology may change cognition without necessarily harming it. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 973– 975. 10.1038/s41562-021-01162-0 34211150 · DOI
  7. Chien S.-Y. Lewis M. Sycara K. Liu J.-S. Kumru A. (2016). Relation between trust attidudes toward automation, Hofstede's cultural dimensions, and Big Five personality traits, in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 10.1177/1541931213601192 · DOI
  8. Chong L. Zhang G. Goucher-Lambert K. Kotovsky K. Cagan J. (2022). Human confidence in artificial intelligence and in themselves: The evolution and impact of confidence on adoption of AI advice. Comput. Human Behav. 127: 107018. 10.1016/j.chb.2021.107018 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Craik F. I. M. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present...and future? Memory 10, 305– 318. 10.1080/09658210244000135 12396643 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Craik F. I. M. Lockhart R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. J. Verbal Learning Verbal Behav. 11, 671– 648. 10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X · DOI · Paper page
  11. Dawson P. (2020). Cognitive offloading and assessment, In: Re-Imagining University Assessment in a Digital World, eds Bearman M. Dawson P. Ajjawi R. Tai J. Boud D. (Cham: Springer). 10.1007/978-3-030-41956-1_4 · DOI
  12. Dunn T. L. Gaspar C. McLean D. Koehler D. J. Risko E. F. (2021). Distributed metacognition: Increased bias and deficits in metacognitive sensitivity when retrieving information form the internet. Technol. Mind Behav. 2: 39. 10.1037/tmb0000039 · DOI
  13. Eskritt M. Ma S. (2014). Intentional forgetting: Note-taking as naturalistic example. Mem. Cognit. 42, 237– 246. 10.3758/s13421-013-0362-1 24014168 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Fenech E. P. Drews F. A. Bakdash J. Z. (2010). The effects of acoustic turn by turn navigation on wayfinding, In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting. 10.1177/154193121005402305 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Finley J. R. Naaz F. Goh F. W. (2018). Memory and Technology: How We Use Information in the Brain and in the World. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. 10.1007/978-3-319-99169-6 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Fisher M. Goddu M. K. Keil F. C. (2015). Searching for explanations: How the internet inflates estimates of internal knowledge. J. Experi. Psychol. 144, 674– 678. 10.1037/xge0000070 25822461 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Fisher M. Smiley A. H. Grillo T. L. H. (2021). Information without knowledge: the effects of internet search on learning. Memory. 20, 375– 387. 10.1080/09658211.2021.1882501 33557708 · DOI
  18. Gilbert S. J. (2015b). Strategic use of reminders: Influence of both domain-general and task-specific metacognitive confidence, independent of objective memory ability. Conscious. Cogn. 33, 245– 260. 10.1016/j.concog.2015.01.006 25666463 · DOI
  19. Grinschgl S. Meyerhoff H. S. Schwan S. Papenmeier F. (2021a). From metacognitive beliefs to strategy selection: Does fake performance feedback influence cognitive offloading? Psychol. Res. 85, 2654– 2666. 10.1007/s00426-020-01435-9 33104868 PMC8440305 · DOI
  20. Grinschgl S. Papenmeier F. Meyerhoff H. S. (2022). Mutual interplay between cognitive offloading and secondary task performance. PMC10728259 37312014
  21. Hills T. Hertwig R. (2011). Why aren't we smarter already: Evolutionary trade-offs and cognitive enhancements. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20, 373– 377. 10.1177/0963721411418300 · DOI
  22. Hoff K. A. Bashir M. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Hum. Factors 57, 407– 437. 10.1177/0018720814547570 25875432 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Hu X. Luo L. Fleming S. M. (2019). A role for metamemory in cognitive offloading. Cognition 193: 104012. 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104012 31271925 PMC6838677 · DOI
  24. Jaušovec N. Pahor A. (2017). Increasing Intelligence. London: Elsevier Academic Press.
  25. Kaplan A. D. Kessler T. T. Brill J. C. Hancock P. A. (2021). Trust in artificial intelligence: Meta-analytic findings. Hum. Factors. 47, 915– 926. 10.1177/00187208211013988 34048287 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Kraus J. Scholz D. Baumann M. (2021). What's driving me? Exploration and validation of a hierarchical personality model for trust in automated driving. Hum. Fact. 63, 1076– 1104. 10.1177/0018720820922653 32633564 · DOI
  27. Li W. Yao N. Shi Y. Nie W. Zhang Y. Li X.. (2020). Personality openness predicts driver trust in automated driving. Automotive Innovation 3, 3– 13. 10.1007/s42154-019-00086-w · DOI
  28. Liao M. S. Sandberg A. Roache R. (2012). Human engineering and climate change. Ethics Policy Environ. 15, 206– 221. 10.1080/21550085.2012.685574 · DOI
  29. Matthews G. Hancock P. A. Lin J. Panganiban A. R. Reinerman-Jones L. E. Szalma J. L.. (2021). Evolution and revolution: Personality research for the coming world of robots, artificial intelligence, and autonomous systems. Pers. Individ. Dif. 169: e109969. 10.1016/j.paid.2020.109969 · DOI
  30. Meyerhoff H. S. Grinschgl S. Papenmeier F. Gilbert S. J. (2021). Individual differences in cognitive offloading: a comparison of intention offloading, pattern copy, and short-term memory capacity. Cognit. Res. 6: 34. 10.1186/s41235-021-00298-x 33928480 PMC8084258 · DOI
  31. Moritz J. Meyerhoff H. S. Schwan S. (2020). Control over spatial representation format enhances information extraction but prevents long-term learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 112, 148– 165. 10.1037/edu0000364 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Neubauer A. C. (2021). The future of intelligence research in the coming age of artificial intelligence–with special consideration of the philosophical movements of trans- and posthumanism. Intelligence 87: 101563. 10.1016/j.intell.2021.101563 · DOI
  33. Runge Y. Frings C. Tempel T. (2019). Saving-enhanced performance: saving items after study boosts performance in subsequent cognitively demanding tasks. Memory 27, 1462– 1467. 10.1080/09658211.2019.1654520 31418314 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Schäfer K. E. Chen J. Y. C. Szalma J. L. Hancock P. A. (2016). A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation: Implications for understanding autonomy in future systems. Hum. Fact. 58, 377– 400. 10.1177/0018720816634228 27005902 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Schönpflug W. (1986). The trade-off between internal and external information storage. J. Mem. Lang. 25, 657– 675. 10.1016/0749-596X(86)90042-2 · DOI
  36. Sharan N. N. Romano D. M. (2020). The effects of personality and locus of control on trust in humans versus artificial intelligence. Heliyon 6: e04572. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04572 32923706 PMC7475230 · DOI
  37. Sorgner S. L. (2020). On Transhumanism. Penn State Univeristy Press. 10.5040/9781350090507.ch-003 · DOI
  38. Van Nimwegen C. Van Oostendorp H. (2009). The questionable impact of an assisting interface on performance in transfer situations. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 39, 501– 508. 10.1016/j.ergon.2008.10.008 · DOI
  39. Waldron S. M. Patrick J. Duggan G. B. (2011). The influence of goal-state access cost on planning during problem solving. Q. J. Experi. Psychol. 64, 485– 503. 10.1080/17470218.2010.507276 20924986 · DOI
  40. Zhang Z. Tao D. Qu Y. Zhang X. Zeng J. Zhu H.. (2020). Automated vehicle acceptance in China: Social influence and initial trust are key determinants. Transport. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 112, 220– 233. 10.1016/j.trc.2020.01.027 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grinschgl, S., & Neubauer, A. C.
Affiliations
University of Graz (AT)
Corresponding author
Grinschgl, Sandra
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2022-07-14
Volume
5
Pages
908261-908261
ISSN
2624-8212 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/frai.2022.908261
PMC
PMC9329671
OpenAlex
W4285387515
Cited by
107
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 72 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 6
FWCI
4.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Unipub UB Graz (Universität Graz) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
Keywords
cognitive offloading, distributed cognition, artificial intelligence, metacognition, trust in AI, personality, cognitive resources, smartphone use, tool design, AI dependency

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