Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Differentiating Different Types of Cognitive Load: a Comparison of Different Measures

  • Intervention Study
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent studies about learning and instruction use cognitive load measurement to pay attention to the human cognitive resources and to the consumption of these resources during the learning process. In order to validate different measures of cognitive load for different cognitive load factors, the present study compares three different methods of objective cognitive load measurement and one subjective method. An experimental three-group design (N = 78) was used, with exposure to seductive details (extraneous cognitive load factor), mental animation tasks (germane cognitive load factor), or the basic learning instruction (control group). Cognitive load was measured by the rhythm method (Park and Brünken 2015), the index of cognitive activity (ICA) (Marshall 2007), and the subjective ratings of mental effort and task difficulty (Paas 1992). Eye-tracking data were used to analyze the attention allocation and as an indicator for cognitive activity. The results show a significantly higher cognitive load for the mental animation group in contrast to the control and the seductive detail group, indicated by rhythm method and subjective ratings, as well as a higher cognitive activity, indicated by eye tracking. Furthermore, the mental animation group shows significantly higher comprehension performance in contrast to the seductive detail group and significantly higher transfer performance in contrast to the control group. The ICA values showed no significant differences in cognitive load. The results provide evidence for the benefits of combining eye-tracking analysis and the results of cognitive load ratings or secondary task performance for a direct and continuous cognitive load assessment and for a differentiating access to the single cognitive load factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16, 389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann, J. F. (2010). Taming a beast of burden—on some issues with the conceptualization and operationalization of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 20, 250–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brünken, R., Plass, J., & Leutner, D. (2004). How instruction guides attention in multimedia learning. In H. Niegemann, R. Brünken, & D. Leutner (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning. Proceedings of the EARLI SIG 6 Biannual Workshop 2002 (pp. 113–125). Waxmann: Erfurt, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brünken, R., Moreno, R., & Plass, J. (2010a). Current issues and open questions in cognitive load research. In J. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 253–272). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brünken, R., Seufert, T., & Paas, F. (2010b). Measuring cognitive load. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 181–202). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, H. H., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of the physical environment on cognitive load and learning: towards a new model of cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 225–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E., & Clark, V. P. (2010). From neo-behaviorism to neuroscience: perspectives on the origins and future contributions of cognitive load research. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 203–229). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 105–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Leeuw, K., & Mayer, R. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 223–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debue, N., & Van De Leemput, C. (2014). What does germane cognitive load mean? An empirical contribution to the cognitive load theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demberg, V., Sayeed, A., Mahr, A., & Müller, C. (2013). Measuring linguistically-induced cognitive load during driving using the ConTRe task. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutoUI), Oct 2013 (pp. 176–183). Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

  • Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harmann, H. H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folker, S., Ritter, H., & Sichelschmidt, L. (2005). Processing and integrating multimodal material—the influence of color coding. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of 27th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 690–695). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, R., Gillingham, M. G., & White, C. S. (1989). Effects of “seductive details” on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, R., Brown, R., Sanders, S., & Menke, D. J. (1992). “Seductive details” and learning from text. In K. A. Renninger (Ed.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 239–254). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, E., & Sadoski, M. (1995). ‘Commentary: The perils of seduction: Distracting details or incomprehensible abstractions?’: reply. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 518–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopher, D., & Braune, R. (1984). On the psychophysics of workload: why bother with subjective measures? Human Factors, 26, 519–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haider, H., & Frensch, P. A. (1999). Eye movement during skill acquisition: more evidence for the information-reduction hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 172–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: a theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, M. (1992). Mental animation: Inferring motion from static displays of mechanical systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1084–1102.

  • Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition And Instruction, 21, 325–360.

  • Hoffman, B., & Schraw, G. (2010). Conceptions of efficiency: applications in learning and problem solving. Educational Psychologist, 45, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., & Van De Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking—a comprehensive guide to methods and measures. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research. Boston: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, S., Gerjets, P., & Van Gog, T. (2010). In the eyes of the beholder: how experts and novices interpret dynamic stimuli. Learning and Instruction, 20, 146–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1993). The intensity dimension of thought: pupillometric indices of sentence processing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 310–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitiv load theory: how many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korbach, A., Brünken, R., & Park, B. (2016). Learner characteristics and information processing in multimedia learning: a moderated mediation of the seductive details effect. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 59–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laeng, B., Ørbo, M., Holmlund, T., & Miozzo, M. (2011). Pupillary stroop effects. Cognitive Processing, 12, 13–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehman, S., Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T., & Hartley, K. (2007). Processing and recall of seductive details in scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 569–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Van Gog, T., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavioral Research Methods, 45, 1058–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van Gog, T., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2014). Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 30, 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magner, U. I. E., Schwonke, R., Aleven, V., Popescu, O., & Renkl, A. (2014). Triggering situational interest by decorative illustrations both fosters and hinders learning in computer-based learning environments. Learning and Instruction, 29, 141–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, S. (2007). Identifying cognitive state from eye metrics. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 78, B165–B175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, S., Pleydell-Pearce, C., & Dickson, B. (2003). Integrating psychophysiological measures of cognitive workload and eye movements to detect strategy shifts. HICSS ‘03 Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–6). Big Island, Hawaii.

  • Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2010). Unique contributions of eye-tracking research to the study of learning with graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20, 167–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2014). Incorporating motivation into multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 171–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McInerney, D. M., & Sinclair, K. E. (1991). Cross cultural model testing: inventory of school motivation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 123–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2006). Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the method-affects-learning hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 149–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Park, B. (2010). Cognitive load theory: historical development and relation to other theories. In J. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 9–28). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Münzer, S., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2009). Learning from multimedia presentations: facilitation function of animations and spatial abilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 481–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberauer, K., Süß, H. M., Schulze, R., Wilhelm, O., & Wittmann, W. W. (2000). Working memory capacity—facets of a cognitive ability construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1017–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: a cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., & Van Merrienboer, J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. M. (2003a). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003b). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, B. (2010). Testing the additivity hypothesis of cognitive load theory. Dissertation, Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes. http://scidok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2010/3478/.

  • Park, B., & Brünken, R. (2015). The rhythm method: a new method for measuring cognitive load—an experimental dual task study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 232–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, B., Moreno, R., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2011). Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 5–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, B., Plass, J. L., & Brünken, R. (2014). Cognitive and affective processes in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 125–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, B., Knörzer, L., Plass, J. L., & Brünken, R. (2015a). Emotional design and positive emotions in multimedia learning: an eye-tracking study on the use of antropomorphisms. Computers & Education, 86, 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, B., Flowerday, T., & Brünken, R. (2015b). Cognitive and affective effects of seductive details in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 267–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, B., Korbach, A., & Brünken, R. (2015c). Do learner characteristics moderate the seductive-details-effect? A cognitive-load-study using eye-tracking. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18, 24–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, B., Münzer, S., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2016). The role of spatial ability when fostering mental animation in multimedia learning: an ATI-study. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 497–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., Li, X., Williams, C. C., Cave, K. R., & Well, A. D. (2007). Eye movements during information processing tasks: individual differences and cultural effects. Vision Research, 47, 2714–2726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 445–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rey, G. D. (2012). A review of research and a meta-analysis of the seductive details effect. Educational Research Review, 32, 133–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey, G. D. (2014). Seductive details and attention distraction—an eye tracker experiment. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 133–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34, 344–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmeck, A., Opfermann, M., Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Leutner, D. (2015). Measuring cognitive load with subjective rating scales during problem solving: differences between immediate and delayed ratings. Instructional Science, 43, 93–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 100–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwalm, M. (2009). Pupillometry as a method for measuring mental workload within an automotive context. Dissertation, Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes. http://scidok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2009/2082/

  • Schwalm, M., Keinath, A., & Zimmer, H. D. (2008). Pupillometry as a method for measuring mental workload within a simulated driving task. In D. De Waard, F. Flemisch, B. Lorenz, H. Oberheid, & K. Brookhuis (Eds.), Human factors for assistance and automation (pp. 75–88). Masstricht: Shaker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. & Ayres, P. (2014). The Impact of persistent pain on working memory and learning. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 245–264.

  • Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell: ACER Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, S. (2010). Element Interactivity and Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2):123–138

  • Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. G., & Paas, F. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thorpe, S., Fize, D., & Marlot, C. (1996). Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature, 381(6582), 520–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, G., Hubbard, A., & Wilkinson, H. (1990). Eye fixation predict reading comprehension: The relationships between reading skill, reading speed, and visual inspection. Language And Speech, 33, 69–81.

  • Van Gog, T., Kirschner, F., Kestner, L., & Paas, F. (2012). Timing and frequency of mental effort measurement: Evidence in favor of repeated measures. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 833–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, B., & Salvendy, G. (2000). Prediction of mental workload in single and multiple tasks environments. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4, 213–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01PL12057). The authors wish to thank the editor Fred Paas and all anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, Saarland University, Campus A4 2, 66123, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Andreas Korbach, Roland Brünken & Babette Park

Authors
  1. Andreas Korbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roland Brünken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Babette Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Korbach.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Q610001003).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Korbach, A., Brünken, R. & Park, B. Differentiating Different Types of Cognitive Load: a Comparison of Different Measures. Educ Psychol Rev 30, 503–529 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9404-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9404-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation