pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2506.08872 · v2 · submitted 2025-06-10 · 💻 cs.AI

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task

Nataliya Kosmyna , Eugene Hauptmann , Ye Tong Yuan , Jessica Situ , Xian-Hao Liao , Ashly Vivian Beresnitzky , Iris Braunstein , Pattie Maes
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 04:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI
keywords cognitive debtLLMEEG connectivityessay writingAI assistancebrain networkslearning implicationsneural engagement
0
0 comments X

The pith

Relying on LLMs for essay writing reduces brain connectivity and builds cognitive debt compared to writing unaided or with search tools.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper examines the effects of using large language model assistants on brain activity during essay writing by comparing three groups: those using only their minds, those with search engines, and those with LLMs. It tracks participants over multiple sessions with EEG measurements of brain connectivity, analysis of essay content, and assessments of how much ownership people feel over their work. The central finding is that brain-only users develop the strongest and most distributed neural networks, search users show medium levels, and LLM users show the weakest, with this pattern persisting and leading to poorer recall and engagement. If correct, the results indicate that relying on AI for such tasks may reduce the cognitive effort needed for learning and memory formation.

Core claim

The study found that brain connectivity during essay writing was strongest and most distributed among participants who wrote without any tools, moderate for those using search engines, and weakest for those assisted by LLMs. This scaling of neural engagement inversely with tool use held across sessions, and in a fourth session where conditions switched, participants who had used LLMs showed reduced alpha and beta connectivity even when switched to no-tool writing. LLM users also reported the lowest sense of ownership over their essays and had difficulty accurately recalling quotes from their own writing, while brain-only users showed the highest ownership.

What carries the argument

EEG measurements of brain network connectivity during writing tasks, which scale down as reliance on external tools increases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar cognitive reductions might occur in other domains like coding or problem-solving when using AI assistants.
  • Longer-term studies could test whether these effects reverse after prolonged periods without AI tools.
  • Educational practices may need to incorporate strategies to mitigate dependency on AI for core skill development.
  • The findings suggest potential societal impacts on critical thinking if AI use becomes widespread in learning.

Load-bearing premise

That the observed differences in EEG brain connectivity reflect a buildup of cognitive debt from repeated LLM use rather than short-term task demands or pre-existing group differences.

What would settle it

A study tracking the same individuals' brain connectivity over many months with and without LLM access during writing tasks to observe if connectivity declines specifically with LLM exposure.

read the original abstract

This study explores the neural and behavioral consequences of LLM-assisted essay writing. Participants were divided into three groups: LLM, Search Engine, and Brain-only (no tools). Each completed three sessions under the same condition. In a fourth session, LLM users were reassigned to Brain-only group (LLM-to-Brain), and Brain-only users were reassigned to LLM condition (Brain-to-LLM). A total of 54 participants took part in Sessions 1-3, with 18 completing session 4. We used electroencephalography (EEG) to assess cognitive load during essay writing, and analyzed essays using NLP, as well as scoring essays with the help from human teachers and an AI judge. Across groups, NERs, n-gram patterns, and topic ontology showed within-group homogeneity. EEG revealed significant differences in brain connectivity: Brain-only participants exhibited the strongest, most distributed networks; Search Engine users showed moderate engagement; and LLM users displayed the weakest connectivity. Cognitive activity scaled down in relation to external tool use. In session 4, LLM-to-Brain participants showed reduced alpha and beta connectivity, indicating under-engagement. Brain-to-LLM users exhibited higher memory recall and activation of occipito-parietal and prefrontal areas, similar to Search Engine users. Self-reported ownership of essays was the lowest in the LLM group and the highest in the Brain-only group. LLM users also struggled to accurately quote their own work. While LLMs offer immediate convenience, our findings highlight potential cognitive costs. Over four months, LLM users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels. These results raise concerns about the long-term educational implications of LLM reliance and underscore the need for deeper inquiry into AI's role in learning.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an empirical study comparing LLM-assisted, search-engine-assisted, and brain-only essay writing across three sessions (n=54) with a crossover in session 4 (n=18). Using EEG for brain connectivity, NLP metrics, human and AI essay scoring, it claims that brain-only participants show the strongest distributed neural networks, LLM users the weakest connectivity and lowest essay ownership, and that LLM users exhibit consistent underperformance at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels over four months, indicating accumulation of cognitive debt.

Significance. If the reported EEG connectivity differences and behavioral patterns prove robust, the work would be significant for cognitive science and AI ethics in education, providing empirical evidence of potential long-term costs of LLM reliance during learning tasks and motivating further study of tool effects on cognitive engagement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The headline claim of consistent underperformance 'over four months' and accumulation of cognitive debt relies on group comparisons from sessions 1-3 plus a small crossover (n=18) in session 4, but provides no within-subject longitudinal metrics such as session-by-session connectivity slopes for the original LLM arm or power calculations, leaving the accumulation interpretation unsupported.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (session-4 description): With only 18 completers in the crossover (presumably ~9 per switched arm), observed drops in alpha/beta connectivity for LLM-to-Brain participants cannot be isolated from immediate reassignment effects, selection bias among returnees, or unmeasured baseline differences; the design does not report within-subject change scores or equivalence checks between original groups.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: EEG connectivity differences are described as 'significant' without accompanying error bars, p-values, exact statistical tests, or detailed exclusion criteria, which limits evaluation of the strength of evidence for the ordering Brain-only > Search > LLM.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The description of NLP analyses (NERs, n-gram patterns, topic ontology) states within-group homogeneity but does not quantify how these metrics relate to the central cognitive-debt claim or report between-group contrasts.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's detailed feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each comment and provide point-by-point responses below. Where appropriate, we have revised the manuscript to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The headline claim of consistent underperformance 'over four months' and accumulation of cognitive debt relies on group comparisons from sessions 1-3 plus a small crossover (n=18) in session 4, but provides no within-subject longitudinal metrics such as session-by-session connectivity slopes for the original LLM arm or power calculations, leaving the accumulation interpretation unsupported.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important point regarding the interpretation of our findings. The accumulation of cognitive debt is inferred from the consistent pattern of underperformance in the LLM group across the three sessions compared to the other groups. In the revised manuscript, we have included additional analyses showing session-by-session EEG connectivity metrics for all groups to better illustrate the patterns. We acknowledge the lack of formal within-subject slope calculations and power analysis, which we have noted as a limitation. We have adjusted the language in the abstract to 'consistent underperformance across sessions' to more accurately reflect the data without overclaiming accumulation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (session-4 description): With only 18 completers in the crossover (presumably ~9 per switched arm), observed drops in alpha/beta connectivity for LLM-to-Brain participants cannot be isolated from immediate reassignment effects, selection bias among returnees, or unmeasured baseline differences; the design does not report within-subject change scores or equivalence checks between original groups.

    Authors: We agree that the small sample size in the crossover session (n=18) restricts the generalizability and causal claims from these data. In the revision, we now explicitly report within-subject change scores for connectivity measures in the crossover groups. We have also added baseline equivalence checks between the subgroups that returned for session 4. The limitations section has been expanded to discuss potential confounds such as reassignment effects and selection bias among participants who completed all sessions. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: EEG connectivity differences are described as 'significant' without accompanying error bars, p-values, exact statistical tests, or detailed exclusion criteria, which limits evaluation of the strength of evidence for the ordering Brain-only > Search > LLM.

    Authors: We appreciate this feedback on the presentation of statistical results. The abstract has been updated to include specific details on the statistical tests performed (e.g., one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's HSD post-hoc tests), representative p-values, and a reference to the methods for exclusion criteria. Full statistical tables with error bars (standard errors) and exact values are provided in the results section and supplementary information. This allows readers to better assess the evidence for the observed ordering of brain connectivity across groups. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in empirical group comparisons

full rationale

The paper is a purely empirical study reporting direct EEG connectivity measurements, NLP essay analyses, and behavioral scores across three participant groups with a crossover in session 4. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or self-citation chains appear in the provided abstract or description. Central claims rest on observed differences in measured data (e.g., brain connectivity strength, essay ownership) rather than any reduction to inputs by construction. This matches the default expectation of no circularity for non-derivational empirical work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The study rests on standard neuroscientific assumptions about what EEG connectivity indicates; no free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption EEG connectivity strength and distribution reflect levels of cognitive engagement and load during writing tasks
    Invoked when interpreting weaker networks in the LLM group as reduced cognitive activity.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5648 in / 1201 out tokens · 99395 ms · 2026-05-16T04:43:09.105299+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith.Foundation.LawOfExistence defect_zero_iff_one unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    Brain-only participants exhibited the strongest, most distributed networks; Search Engine users showed moderate engagement; and LLM users displayed the weakest connectivity. Over four months, LLM users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 19 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. ChatGPT: Friend or Foe When Comprehending and Changing Unfamiliar Code

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Developers using AI showed the same core problem-solving behaviors as those without but differed in how they became stuck and recovered, with AI helping or hindering in specific cases.

  2. NIRVANA: A Comprehensive Dataset for Reproducing How Students Use Generative AI for Essay Writing

    cs.HC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    NIRVANA supplies keystroke-level logs, complete ChatGPT dialogues, and copied content from 77 students to reconstruct AI-assisted essay writing and classify students into four behavioral profiles: Lead Authors, Collab...

  3. Alignment has a Fantasia Problem

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    AI alignment must move beyond assuming users have fully formed goals and instead provide active cognitive support to help form and refine intent over time.

  4. Critical Inker: Scaffolding Critical Thinking in AI-Assisted Writing Through Socratic Questioning

    cs.HC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Critical Inker scaffolds critical reflection during AI-assisted writing via Socratic questioning and visual logical-error feedback, reporting 91.2% argument overlap with ground truth and 87% validity accuracy in a pil...

  5. RelianceScope: An Analytical Framework for Examining Students' Reliance on Generative AI Chatbots in Problem Solving

    cs.HC 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    RelianceScope is a new analytical framework that maps AI reliance into nine engagement patterns across help-seeking and response-use, situated in students' prior knowledge and instructional context, validated on progr...

  6. Human-AI Co-Evolution and Epistemic Collapse: A Dynamical Systems Perspective

    cs.HC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A minimal three-variable dynamical model of human-AI feedback predicts that increasing reliance on AI induces a transition to a low-diversity suboptimal equilibrium, interpreted as an emergent information bottleneck.

  7. Dive into Claude Code: The Design Space of Today's and Future AI Agent Systems

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Claude Code centers on a model-tool while-loop surrounded by permission systems, context compaction, extensibility hooks, subagent delegation, and session storage; the same design questions yield different answers in ...

  8. Towards an Appropriate Level of Reliance on AI: A Preliminary Reliance-Control Framework for AI in Software Engineering

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Interviews with 22 developers produced a preliminary reliance-control framework that uses levels of control over AI to identify appropriate reliance in software engineering.

  9. Beyond the 'Diff': Addressing Agentic Entropy in Agentic Software Development

    cs.SE 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Agentic entropy names the systemic drift in AI coding agents away from architectural intent; a new framework using conformity seeding, reasoning monitoring, and causal graph interfaces supplies process-level oversight...

  10. Thinking Less, Trusting More: GenAI's Impacts on Students' Cognitive Habits

    cs.HC 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Trust-driven routine use of generative AI is linked to reduced cognitive engagement in STEM students, with higher technophilic traits increasing vulnerability.

  11. Preparing Students for AI-Powered Materials Discovery: A Workflow-Aligned Framework for AI Literacy, Equity, and Scientific Judgment

    physics.ed-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    This position paper advocates shifting AI education in materials discovery from basic tool access to a workflow-aligned literacy model that builds scientific judgment and equitable outcomes.

  12. Prober.ai: Gated Inquiry-Based Feedback via LLM-Constrained Personas for Argumentative Writing Development

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Prober.ai constrains LLMs via personas and JSON schemas to deliver gated, inquiry-based questions on argumentative writing weaknesses, aiming to reduce cognitive debt from AI overuse.

  13. Position: the Stochastic Parrot in the Coal Mine. Model Collapse is a Threat to Low-Resource Communities

    cs.LG 2026-05 conditional novelty 4.0

    Model collapse threatens AI democratization by disproportionately degrading data and efficiency for low-resource communities.

  14. The Crutch or the Ceiling? How Different Generations of LLMs Shape EFL Student Writings

    cs.HC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Advanced LLMs improve EFL writing scores and diversity for lower-proficiency students but correlate with lower expert ratings on deep coherence, acting more as crutches than scaffolds.

  15. The Epidemiology of Artificial Intelligence

    stat.OT 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    AI functions as a determinant of health with ambient and personal exposure types, requiring new epidemiological study designs beyond current experiments.

  16. Participatory, not Punitive: Student-Driven AI Policy Recommendations in a Design Classroom

    cs.HC 2026-04 conditional novelty 4.0

    Student-facilitated workshops in one design class produced AI policies highlighting double standards in disclosure requirements between students and faculty, demonstrating value in participatory governance.

  17. What if AI systems weren't chatbots?

    cs.CY 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Chatbot AI systems often fail complex needs while projecting authority, contributing to deskilling, labor displacement, economic concentration, and high environmental costs, so alternative pluralistic and task-specifi...

  18. Counterargument for Critical Thinking as Judged by AI and Humans

    cs.CL 2026-05 conditional novelty 3.0

    Student-written counterarguments to AI-generated thesis statements demonstrate logical reasoning as a component of critical thinking, and LLMs can assess such writing at scale with moderate agreement to human raters (...

  19. Brainrot: Deskilling and Addiction are Overlooked AI Risks

    cs.CY 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    AI safety literature overlooks cognitive deskilling and addiction risks from generative AI despite public concern about them.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

144 extracted references · 144 canonical work pages · cited by 19 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    C., Velarde-Camaqui, D., & Glasserman-Morales, L

    Peláez-Sánchez, I. C., Velarde-Camaqui, D., & Glasserman-Morales, L. D. (2024). The impact of large language models on higher education: Exploring the connection between AI and Education 4.0. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1392091. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1392091

    work page doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1392091 2024

  2. [3]

    Gerlich, M. (2025). AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking. Societies, 15(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006

    work page doi:10.3390/soc15010006 2025

  3. [5]

    Shanmugasundaram, M., & Tamilarasu, A. (2023). The impact of digital technology, social media, and artificial intelligence on cognitive functions: A review. Frontiers in Cognition, 2, 1203077. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcogn.2023.1203077

    work page doi:10.3389/fcogn.2023.1203077 2023

  4. [6]

    Su, J., & Yang, W. (2023). Unlocking the Power of ChatGPT: A Framework for Applying Generative AI in Education. ECNU Review of Education, 6(3), 355-366. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311231168423

    work page doi:10.1177/20965311231168423 2023

  5. [7]

    Milana, M., Brandi, U., Hodge, S., & Hoggan-Kloubert, T. (2024). Artificial intelligence (AI), conversational agents, and generative AI: implications for adult education practice and research. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 43(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2024.2310448

    work page doi:10.1080/02601370.2024.2310448 2024

  6. [8]

    Bai, L., Liu, X., & Su, J. (2023). ChatGPT: The cognitive effects on learning and memory. Brain-X, 1, e30. https://doi.org/10.1002/brx2.30

    work page doi:10.1002/brx2.30 2023

  7. [9]

    Sajja, R., Sermet, Y., Cikmaz, M., Cwiertny, D., & Demir, I. (2024). Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Intelligent Assistant for Personalized and Adaptive Learning in Higher Education. Information (Basel), 15(10), 596. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15100596

    work page doi:10.3390/info15100596 2024

  8. [10]

    Cacicio, S., & Riggs, R. (2023). ChatGPT: Leveraging AI to Support Personalized Teaching and Learning. Adult Literacy Education: The International Journal of Literacy, Language, and Numeracy, 5(2), 70-74. https://doi.org/10.35847/SCacicio.RRiggs.5.2.70

    work page doi:10.35847/scacicio.rriggs.5.2.70 2023

  9. [11]

    King, M. R. (2023). A Conversation on Artificial Intelligence, Chatbots, and Plagiarism in Higher Education. Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering, 16(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8 Preprint, under review 155

    work page doi:10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8 2023

  10. [12]

    D., Reig, B., Shih, G., & Moy, L

    Shen, Y., Heacock, L., Elias, J., Hentel, K. D., Reig, B., Shih, G., & Moy, L. (2023). ChatGPT and Other Large Language Models Are Double-edged Swords. Radiology, 307(2), e230163-e230163. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230163

    work page doi:10.1148/radiol.230163 2023

  11. [13]

    F., Han, H., Alam, M

    Ahmad, S. F., Han, H., Alam, M. M., Rehmat, M. K., Irshad, M., Arraño-Muñoz, M., & Ariza-Montes, A. (2023). Impact of artificial intelligence on human loss in decision making, laziness and safety in education. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, Article 311. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01787-8

    work page doi:10.1057/s41599-023-01787-8 2023

  12. [14]

    Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Educa...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 2023

  13. [15]

    Pedró, F., Subosa, M., Rivas, A., & Valverde, P. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable development. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000366994

    work page 2019

  14. [16]

    Zhou, J., Muller, H., Holzinger, A., & Chen, F. (2024). Ethical ChatGPT: Concerns, Challenges, and Commandments. Electronics (Basel), 13(17), 3417. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13173417

    work page doi:10.3390/electronics13173417 2024

  15. [17]

    C., Hsu, Y

    Yang, T. C., Hsu, Y. C., & Wu, J. Y. (2025). The effectiveness of ChatGPT in assisting high school students in programming learning: evidence from a quasi-experimental research. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2450659

    work page doi:10.1080/10494820.2025.2450659 2025

  16. [18]

    Zhang, S., Zhao, X., Zhou, T., & Kim, J. H. (2024). Do you have AI dependency? The roles of academic self-efficacy, academic stress, and performance expectations on problematic AI usage behavior. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 34-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00467-0

    work page doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00467-0 2024

  17. [19]

    Jelson, A., Manesh, D., Jang, A., Dunlap, D., & Lee, S. W. (2025). An Empirical Study to Understand How Students Use ChatGPT for Writing Essays. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10551. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.10551

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [20]

    Wang, J., & Fan, W. (2025). The effect of ChatGPT on students' learning performance, learning perception, and higher-order thinking: Insights from a meta-analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, 621. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04787-y

    work page doi:10.1057/s41599-025-04787-y 2025

  19. [21]

    (2020, March 5)

    Turner, E., & Rainie, L. (2020, March 5). Most Americans rely on their own research to make big decisions, and that often means online searches. Pew Research Center. Retrieved March 17, 2025, from Preprint, under review 156 https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/03/05/most-americans-rely-on-their-own-research-to-make-big-decisions-and-that-often-mea...

    work page 2020

  20. [22]

    von Hoyer, J., Hoppe, A., Kammerer, Y., Otto, C., Pardi, G., Rokicki, M., Yu, R., Dietze, S., Ewerth, R., & Holtz, P. (2022). The Search as Learning Spaceship: Toward a comprehensive model of psychological and technological facets of Search as Learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 827748. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.827748

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.827748 2022

  21. [23]

    Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp.13-39). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50031-7 2000

  22. [24]

    A., Wood, E., Mueller, J., & Ross, C

    Willoughby, T., Anderson, S. A., Wood, E., Mueller, J., & Ross, C. (2009). Fast searching for information on the Internet to use in a learning context: The impact of domain knowledge. Computers and Education, 52(3), 640-648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.009 2009

  23. [25]

    C., & Azevedo, R

    Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 270-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.03.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.03.001 2008

  24. [26]

    Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4),199-209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4004_2

    work page doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4004_2 2005

  25. [27]

    Opfermann, M., Azevedo, R., & Leutner, D. (2012). Metacognition and hypermedia learning: How do they relate? In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 2224-2228). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_709

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_709 2012

  26. [28]

    L., & Chiarelli, S

    Whipp, J. L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in a web-based course: A case study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52(4), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504714

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02504714 2004

  27. [29]

    Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776-778. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207745

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1207745 2011

  28. [30]

    Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 275-285. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

    work page doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 1988

  29. [31]

    Sundararajan, N., & Adesope, O. (2020). Keep it coherent: A meta-analysis of the seductive details effect. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 707-734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09522-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s10648-020-09522-4 2020

  30. [32]

    Mutlu-Bayraktar, D., Cosgun, V., & Altan, T. (2019). Cognitive load in multimedia learning environments: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 141, Article 103618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103618 Preprint, under review 157

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103618 2019

  31. [33]

    Chen, O., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2017). The expertise reversal effect is a variant of the more general element interactivity effect. Educational Psychology Review, 29(2),393-405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9359-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10648-016-9359-1 2017

  32. [34]

    Klepsch, M., Schmitz, F., & Seufert, T. (2017). Development and validation of two instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1997. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01997

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01997 2017

  33. [35]

    Paas, F., & van Gog, T. (2006). Optimising worked example instruction: Different ways to increase germane cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 87-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.004 2006

  34. [36]

    Gwizdka, J. (2010). Distribution of cognitive load in Web search. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(11), 2167-2187. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21385

    work page doi:10.1002/asi.21385 2010

  35. [37]

    Gong, C., & Yang, Y. (2024). Google effects on memory: A meta-analytical review of the media effects of intensive Internet search behavior. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, Article 1332030. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1332030

    work page doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1332030 2024

  36. [38]

    Al-Samarraie, H., & Al-Hatem, A. I. (2018). The Effect of Web Search Result Display on Users' Perceptual Experience and Information Seeking Performance. The Reference Librarian, 59(1), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2017.1399849

    work page doi:10.1080/02763877.2017.1399849 2018

  37. [39]

    Gwizdka, J. (2009). Individual differences in cognitive load during web search: Impacts on task efficiency and strategy. The Ergonomics Open Journal, 2(1), 114-121

    work page 2009

  38. [40]

    Stadler, M., Bannert, M., & Sailer, M. (2024). Cognitive ease at a cost: LLMs reduce mental effort but compromise depth in student scientific inquiry. Computers in Human Behavior, 160, 108386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108386

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2024.108386 2024

  39. [41]

    Schmidhuber, J., Schlogl, S., Ploder, C., Kaber, D., Fortino, G., Guerrieri, A., Nurnberger, A., Mendonca, D., Yu, Z., & Schilling, M. (2021). Cognitive Load and Productivity Implications in Human-Chatbot Interaction. 2021 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Human-Machine Systems (ICHMS), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICHMS53169.2021.9582445

    work page doi:10.1109/ichms53169.2021.9582445 2021

  40. [42]

    (2025, April)

    Lee, H.-P., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., & Wilson, N. (2025, April). The impact of generative AI on critical thinking: Self-reported reductions in cognitive effort and confidence effects from a survey of knowledge workers. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. https://doi.o...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713778 2025

  41. [43]

    Yang, Y., Shin, A., Kang, M., Kang, J., & Song, J. Y. (2024). Can We Delegate Learning to Automation?: A Comparative Study of LLM Chatbots, Search Engines, and Books. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2410.01396 Preprint, under review 158

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.01396 2024

  42. [44]

    L., & Toms, E

    O'Brien, H. L., & Toms, E. G. (2008). What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 938-955. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20801

    work page doi:10.1002/asi.20801 2008

  43. [45]

    L., Cairns, P., & Hall, M

    O'Brien, H. L., Cairns, P., & Hall, M. (2018). A practical approach to measuring user engagement with the refined user engagement scale (UES) and new UES short form. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 112, 28-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.01.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.01.004 2018

  44. [46]

    Webster, J., & Ho, H. (1997). Audience engagement in multimedia presentations. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 28(2), 63 77. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/264701.264706

    work page doi:10.1145/264701.264706 1997

  45. [47]

    Ouyang, Z., Jiang, Y., & Liu, H. (2024). The Effects of Duolingo, an AI-Integrated Technology, on EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate and Engagement in Online Classes. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 25(3), 97-115. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v25i3.7677

    work page doi:10.19173/irrodl.v25i3.7677 2024

  46. [48]

    C., Ding, Z., Lin, J., & Hopfgartner, F

    Cao, C. C., Ding, Z., Lin, J., & Hopfgartner, F. (2023). AI Chatbots as Multi-Role Pedagogical Agents: Transforming Engagement in CS Education. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2308.03992

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.03992 2023

  47. [49]

    Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., & McLaughlan, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17

    work page doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17 2023

  48. [50]

    Deng, X., & Yu, Z. (2023). A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Effect of Chatbot Technology Use in Sustainable Education. Sustainability, 15(4), 2940. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042940

    work page doi:10.3390/su15042940 2023

  49. [51]

    W., Moody, T

    Small, G. W., Moody, T. D., Siddarth, P., & Bookheimer, S. Y. (2009). Your brain on Google: Patterns of cerebral activation during Internet searching. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 17(2), 116-126. https://doi.org/10.1097/JGP.0b013e3181953a02

    work page doi:10.1097/jgp.0b013e3181953a02 2009

  50. [52]

    S., & Monosov, I

    Bromberg-Martin, E. S., & Monosov, I. E. (2020). Neural circuitry of information seeking. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 35, 62-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.07.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.07.006 2020

  51. [53]

    N., Michel, C

    Dong, G., Potenza, M. N., Michel, C. M., & Michel, C. M. (2015). Behavioural and brain responses related to Internet search and memory. The European Journal of Neuroscience, 42(8), 2546-2554. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13039

    work page doi:10.1111/ejn.13039 2015

  52. [54]

    Causse, M., Lepron, E., Mandrick, K., Peysakhovich, V., Berry, I., Callan, D., & Rémy, F. (2022). Facing successfully high mental workload and stressors: An fMRI study. Human Brain Mapping, 43(3), 1011-1031. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25703 Preprint, under review 159

    work page doi:10.1002/hbm.25703 2022

  53. [55]

    and Gašević, D., (2024)

    Fan, Y., Tang, L., Le, H., Shen, K., Tan, S., Zhao, Y., Shen, Y., Li, X. and Gašević, D., (2024). Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.09315

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [56]

    Herbold, S., Hautli-Janisz, A., Heuer, U., Vogel, L., Müller, R., & Brandt, M. (2023). A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays. Scientific Reports, 13, 18617. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45644-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-023-45644-9 2023

  55. [57]

    C., Akter, S., Sultana, N., Sultana, J., & Rahman, S

    Niloy, A. C., Akter, S., Sultana, N., Sultana, J., & Rahman, S. I. U. (2024). Is Chatgpt a menace for creative writing ability? An experiment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(2), 919-930. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12929

    work page doi:10.1111/jcal.12929 2024

  56. [58]

    Stahl, M., Biermann, L., Nehring, A., & Wachsmuth, H. (2024). Exploring LLM prompting strategies for joint essay scoring and feedback generation. In Proceedings of the 19th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (pp. 283-298). https://aclanthology.org/2024.bea-1.23/

    work page 2024

  57. [59]

    Lee, S., Cai, Y., Meng, D., Wang, Z., & Wu, Y. (2024). Unleashing Large Language Models' Proficiency in Zero-shot Essay Scoring. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2404.04941

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.04941 2024

  58. [60]

    Kanell, Peter Xu, Omar Khattab, and Monica S

    Shao, Y., Jiang, Y., Kanell, T. A., Xu, P., Khattab, O., & Lam, M. S. (2024). Assisting in Writing Wikipedia-like Articles From Scratch with Large Language Models. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2402.14207

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.14207 2024

  59. [61]

    Avin, C., Daltrophe, H., & Lotker, Z. (2024). On the impossibility of breaking the echo chamber effect in social media using regulation. Scientific Reports, 14, 1107. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50850-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-023-50850-6 2024

  60. [62]

    Leung, E., & Urminsky, O. (2025). The narrow search effect and how broadening search promotes belief updating. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 122(13), e2408175122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2408175122

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2408175122 2025

  61. [63]

    Vera Liao, and Ziang Xiao

    Sharma, N., Liao, Q. V., & Xiao, Z. (2024). Generative echo chamber? Effect of LLM-powered search systems on diverse information seeking. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '24) (pp. 1-17). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642459

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642459 2024

  62. [64]

    Huang, H., Wang, Y., Rudin, C., & Browne, E. P. (2022). Towards a comprehensive evaluation of dimension reduction methods for transcriptomic data visualization. Communications Biology, 5, 719. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-03628-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s42003-022-03628-x 2022

  63. [65]

    Hare, A., Chen, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, Z., & Brinton, C. G. (2020). On extending NLP techniques from the categorical to the latent space: KL divergence, Zipf's law, and similarity search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.01941 https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.01941 Preprint, under review 160

    work page arXiv 2020

  64. [66]

    A., Zhang, M., Mei, Q., & Bendersky, M

    Kong, W., Hombaiah, S. A., Zhang, M., Mei, Q., & Bendersky, M. (2024). PRewrite: Prompt rewriting with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08189 https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.08189

    work page arXiv 2024

  65. [67]

    Zhang, S., Hu, Y., & Bian, G. (2017). Research on string similarity algorithm based on Levenshtein distance. In 2017 IEEE 2nd Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IAEAC) (pp. 2247-2251). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IAEAC.2017.8054419

    work page doi:10.1109/iaeac.2017.8054419 2017

  66. [68]

    Chen, Y., Arkin, J., Hao, Y., Zhang, Y., Roy, N., & Fan, C. (2024). PRompt Optimization in Multi-Step Tasks (PROMST): Integrating Human Feedback and Heuristic-based Sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08702 https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08702

    work page arXiv 2024

  67. [69]

    Bröhl, F., & Kayser, C. (2021). Delta/theta band EEG differentially tracks low and high frequency speech-derived envelopes. NeuroImage, 233, 117958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.117958

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.117958 2021

  68. [70]

    J., & Kasicki, S

    Korzeniewska, A., Mańczak, M., Kamiński, M., Blinowska, K. J., & Kasicki, S. (2003). Determination of information flow direction among brain structures by a modified directed transfer function (dDTF) method. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 125(1-2), 195-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0270(03)00052-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0165-0270(03)00052-9 2003

  69. [71]

    Fang, Z., Zhang, H., Liu, Y., Li, Y., He, H., & Yao, D. (2024). Joint order and coefficient estimation for MVAR models using group sparsity. In 2024 32nd European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO) (pp. 2292-2296). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.23919/EUSIPCO63174.2024.10715190

    work page doi:10.23919/eusipco63174.2024.10715190 2024

  70. [72]

    M., & Tecchio, F

    Porcaro, C., Zappasodi, F., Rossini, P. M., & Tecchio, F. (2009). Choice of multivariate autoregressive model order affecting real network functional connectivity estimate. Clinical Neurophysiology, 120(2), 436-448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2008.11.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2008.11.011 2009

  71. [73]

    Weiss, T., Hesse, W., Ungureanu, M., Hecht, H., Leistritz, L., Witte, H., & Miltner, W. H. R. (2008). How do brain areas communicate during the processing of noxious stimuli? An analysis of laser-evoked event-related potentials using the Granger causality index. Journal of Neurophysiology, 99(5), 2220-2231. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01161.2007

    work page doi:10.1152/jn.01161.2007 2008

  72. [74]

    Li, M., & Zhang, N. (2022). A dynamic directed transfer function for brain functional network-based feature extraction. Brain Informatics, 9, 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40708-022-00154-8

    work page doi:10.1186/s40708-022-00154-8 2022

  73. [75]

    Fink, A., & Benedek, M. (2014). EEG alpha power and creative ideation. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 44(100), 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.12.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.12.002 2014

  74. [76]

    G., Ravindran, A

    Cruz-Garza, J. G., Ravindran, A. S., Kopteva, A. E., Rivera Garza, C., & Contreras-Vidal, J. L. (2020). Characterization of the stages of creative writing with Preprint, under review 161 mobile EEG using generalized partial directed coherence. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14, 577651. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.577651

    work page doi:10.3389/fnhum.2020.577651 2020

  75. [77]

    J., Li, Y., Duan, H

    Xie, Y. J., Li, Y., Duan, H. D., Xu, X. L., Zhang, W. M., & Fang, P. (2021). Theta oscillations and source connectivity during complex audiovisual object encoding in working memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 614950. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.614950

    work page doi:10.3389/fnhum.2021.614950 2021

  76. [78]

    Safari, M., Shalbaf, R., Bagherzadeh, S., & Mohammadi, A. (2024). Classification of mental workload using brain connectivity and machine learning on electroencephalogram data. Scientific Reports, 14, 9153. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59652-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-59652-w 2024

  77. [79]

    Krumm, G., Arán Filippetti, V., Catanzariti, M., & Mateos, D. M. (2025). Exploring the neural basis of creativity: EEG analysis of power spectrum and functional connectivity during creative tasks in school-aged children. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 19, 1548620. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2025.1548620

    work page doi:10.3389/fncom.2025.1548620 2025

  78. [80]

    Bhattacharya, J., & Petsche, H. (2005). Drawing on mind's canvas: Differences in cortical integration patterns between artists and non-artists. Human Brain Mapping, 26(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20104

    work page doi:10.1002/hbm.20104 2005

  79. [81]

    Razumnikova, O., Volf, N., & Tarasova, I. (2009). Strategy and results: Sex differences in electrographic correlates of verbal and figural creativity. Hum. Physiol. 35, 285-294. doi: 10.1134/S0362119709030049 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0362119709030049

    work page doi:10.1134/s0362119709030049 2009

  80. [82]

    K., & van Gaal, S

    Boot, N., Baas, M., Mühlfeld, E., de Dreu, C. K., & van Gaal, S. (2017). Widespread neural oscillations in the delta band dissociate rule convergence from rule divergence during creative idea generation. Neuropsychologia 104, 8-17. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.07.033 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28774832/

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.07.033 2017

Showing first 80 references.