CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 179Multisensory perception and integrationPersonal Information Management and User BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Does media multitasking always hurt? A positive correlation between multitasking and multisensory integration

Open access
Lui, Kelvin F. H., Wong, Alan C.-N.·2012·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
DOI 10.3758/s13423-012-0245-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Heavy media multitaskers have been found to perform poorly in certain cognitive tasks involving task switching, selective attention, and working memory. An account for this is that with a breadth-biased style of cognitive control, multitaskers tend to pay attention to various information available in the environment, without sufficient focus on the information most relevant to the task at hand. This cognitive style, however, may not cause a general deficit in all kinds of tasks. We tested the hypothesis that heavy media multitaskers would perform better in a multisensory integration task than would others, due to their extensive experience in integrating information from different modalities. Sixty-three participants filled out a questionnaire about their media usage and completed a visual search task with and without synchronous tones (pip-and-pop paradigm). It was found that a higher degree of media multitasking was correlated with better multisensory integration. The fact that heavy media multitaskers are not deficient in all kinds of cognitive tasks suggests that media multitasking does not always hurt.

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 · 10.3758/s13423-012-0245-7

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • Individuals who use smartphones more frequently have shorter attention spans than those who use them less often.

    “Individuals who use smartphones more frequently also have shorter attention spans than those who used them less often (Lui and Wong, 2012).”

    From The impact of digital technology, social media, and artificial intelligence on cognitive functions: a review (2023) · cites this paper as Lui and Wong, 2012

    The Discussion reports that heavy media multitaskers performed worse than light media multitaskers on a visual-search task without a tone. The Apparatus describes a measure of simultaneous use of multiple media, not frequency of smartphone use; the paper does not establish that frequent smartphone users have shorter attention spans. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Participants who used smartphones more frequently had shorter attention spans than those who used them less often.

    “Participants who used smartphones more frequently had shorter attention spans than those who used them less often (Lui and Wong, 2012).”

    From The impact of digital technology, social media, and artificial intelligence on cognitive functions: a review (2023) · cites this paper as Lui and Wong, 2012

    The Apparatus section measures media multitasking across several media, including mobile-phone calls, rather than smartphone-use frequency. The Discussion reports that heavy media multitaskers performed worse on a visual-search task without a tone, but it does not establish that frequent smartphone users have shorter attention spans. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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: 5

  1. Lin, L. (2009). Breadth-biased versus focused cognitive control in media multitasking behaviors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 15521-15522.
  2. Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 15583-15587.
  3. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544.
  4. Van der Burg, E., Olivers, C. N., Bronkhorst, A. W., & Theeuwes, J. (2008). Pip and pop: Nonspatial auditory signals improve spatial visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Percep- tion and Performance, 34, 1053-1065.
  5. Zhang, W., Jeong, S., & Fishbein, M. (2010). Situational factors competing for attention: The interaction effect of multitasking and sexually explicit content on TV recognition. Journal of Media Psychology, 22, 2-13.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lui, K. F. H., & Wong, A. C.-N.
Affiliations
Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Lui, Kelvin F. H.
ORCID
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-04-12
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
647-653
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
DOI
10.3758/s13423-012-0245-7
OpenAlex
W1977966042
Cited by
179
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
12.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
media multitasking, multisensory integration, cognitive control, visual search, task switching, selective attention, working memory, media use
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Attention, Auditory Perception, Communications Media, Female, Humans, Male, Perceptual Masking, Personality, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Visual Perception, Executive Function

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