Cognitive Load: How Mental Demands Affect Performance

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 16, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Attention, Perception & Cognitive Control · Written by Artificial Sapiens

Cognitive load is the demand that a task places on the mental processes needed to select, maintain, transform, and use information. It becomes consequential when a person must coordinate more information, decisions, or competing operations than can be handled efficiently under the current conditions. Its effects depend on the task, the learner's or worker's expertise, available external support, time pressure, and the kind of processing required. Cognitive load therefore describes a relationship between cognitive demands and available processing resources, rather than a fixed quantity possessed by a person. Sweller, van Merriënboer, and Paas (2019); Wickens (2008).

A useful distinction follows immediately. Cognitive effort can be both necessary and productive: understanding a complex argument, mastering a new procedure, or comparing competing explanations requires effort. Difficulty becomes counterproductive when relevant information cannot be maintained, coordinated, or retrieved reliably, or when irrelevant operations consume resources needed for the goal. More effort, higher perceived workload, slower responding, and poorer performance often occur together, but they are not equivalent measures of the same thing. Paas and van Merriënboer (2020); Krieglstein et al. (2022).

What Cognitive Load Means in Psychology

In cognitive psychology, cognitive load names the processing burden generated by what the task requires a person to do. Consider reading an unfamiliar research paper while comparing several statistical results. The reader must hold definitions in mind, connect claims to evidence, track qualifications, and suppress irrelevant associations. Adding background noise, frequent interruptions, ambiguous notation, or an unnecessary reporting format may increase the burden even when the scientific content remains unchanged.

The term is used across neighboring research traditions. Cognitive load theory, developed primarily in educational psychology, explains how demands on limited working memory influence the learning of new material. Mental workload research in human factors examines the relation among task demands, available resources, subjective experience, and performance in activities such as supervising systems or coordinating simultaneous tasks. General attention and executive-control research studies competition, interference, and prioritization at a more fundamental experimental level. These traditions share concerns about limits but differ in definitions and measurement practices. Sweller (1988); Hart and Staveland (1988)62386-9); Wickens (2008).

Cognitive load, mental workload, and mental effort

Task demand describes requirements imposed by the activity, such as the number of interacting steps, speed of information arrival, or need to monitor multiple sources. Mental effort describes resources or exertion invested by the person. Subjective workload describes the experienced burden and may include frustration, time pressure, physical demand, and perceived performance. Cognitive load is often inferred from some combination of these variables, but their relationships depend on context and operational definitions. A difficult task can elicit sustained effort and excellent performance in an expert while producing confusion or errors in a novice. Hart and Staveland (1988)62386-9); de Jong (2010).

Cognitive overload is a useful descriptive term for a situation in which task-relevant processing demands exceed what can be managed effectively. It has no single universally established diagnostic threshold. A person may experience excessive demand as loss of place, repeated checking, slower decisions, missed details, or inability to integrate the next piece of information. These signs motivate closer investigation of the task and context; alone they do not identify a disorder.

The historical scientific problem

Classic cognitive research rejected the assumption that adding steps simply adds a constant amount of time or effort. Experiments involving simultaneous tasks demonstrated interference even when each component task was individually manageable. Research on short-term storage, attention, and response selection identified multiple potential constraints. Cognitive load theory later translated insights about limited processing and prior knowledge into predictions about learning complex tasks. Pashler (1994); Cowan (2001); Sweller (1988).

Why Cognitive Processing Has Limits

Working memory and maintaining task-relevant information

Working memory supports the temporary availability and manipulation of information needed for the current goal. If someone must calculate a total while remembering a discount rule and comparing two prices, each operation depends on information remaining accessible at the right time. New material, competing interpretations, or an unrelated secondary task can disrupt this coordination. Experimental estimates of short-term capacity depend on chunking, rehearsal controls, task instructions, and the definition of an item. Cowan's influential review discussed a limited focus of attention often estimated around four chunks under specific conditions; it did not establish a universal rule for the number of tabs, messages, or complex decisions people can handle. Cowan (2001).

Processing limits are dynamic. Expertise can transform several separately demanding elements into a familiar, integrated structure. Conversely, uncertainty about which rule applies may require active maintenance of more alternatives. The relation between working memory and the control of attention is central here: a task may require both holding information available and shielding it from interference. Engle (2002); Engle (2018).

Executive control and competition among goals

Executive control helps maintain the active goal, select relevant responses, suppress competing habits, and adjust when a rule changes. Mental demands increase when an activity requires continuous choices about what matters next. Instructions that are ambiguous, goals that conflict, and frequent changes of task rules create control demands independent of the quantity of information. A worker may know every needed fact yet still incur costs from repeatedly deciding which process to resume.

The psychological contribution of EN-25 lies in explaining this demand on processing and control. The separate subjects of clinical ADHD, educational curriculum design, and digital-platform competition require their own evidence and editorial ownership. A low score in a control task does not by itself establish a clinical condition. Engle (2018); Pashler (1994).

Parallel work does not guarantee parallel processing

Two tasks can interfere for different reasons. They may demand attention to the same stream of visual material, recruit similar memory operations, create conflicting responses, or require serial selection at a processing bottleneck. In psychological refractory period experiments, a second response is often delayed when two stimulus-response tasks occur close together. This pattern supports limits in central response selection for certain experimental conditions, while leaving room for additional perceptual, motor, and preparation-related constraints. Pashler (1994).

Multiple-resource theory adds that interference depends partly on how tasks overlap in processing stage, perceptual modality, and representational or response demands. Hearing a brief spoken instruction while inspecting a visual diagram might sometimes interfere less than carrying out two highly similar visual operations, but no simple auditory-versus-visual rule predicts all combinations. Performance depends on how information must be interpreted and coordinated. Wickens (2008).

Cognitive Load Theory: Intrinsic and Extraneous Demands

Cognitive load theory (CLT) was developed to explain and improve learning when new or complex information must be processed. Its modern account emphasizes the interaction between limited working-memory processing and knowledge structures in long-term memory. CLT provides especially developed predictions about instructional materials, but it should not be treated as a complete theory of every form of fatigue, attention failure, or mental workload. Sweller, van Merriënboer, and Paas (2019).

Intrinsic cognitive load: interacting elements and prior knowledge

Intrinsic load refers to demands arising from the complexity of what a learner must understand, particularly how many elements need to be coordinated simultaneously. Understanding a simple label may require little integration, whereas reasoning about a causal system can require maintaining relations among several variables. Crucially, intrinsic load is relative to knowledge. A trained statistician can treat a familiar regression model as an organized unit; a beginner may need to coordinate many unfamiliar definitions and calculations. The same presentation can therefore impose different intrinsic demands on different people. Sweller et al. (2019); Paas and van Merriënboer (2020).

Breaking complex material into coherent stages may make coordination more manageable, but segmentation changes the timing and organization of operations rather than magically removing the underlying conceptual relations. When the goal is eventual expertise, learners ultimately need to integrate the elements that belong together.

Extraneous cognitive load: burdens introduced by presentation

Extraneous load refers to processing that does not adequately serve the learning goal and arises from the way material or activities are organized. A diagram on one page paired with instructions several pages away may require repeated searching and integration. An explanation filled with redundant labels or irrelevant decorative information may force unnecessary decisions about what deserves attention. Clarifying references, aligning related representations, and reducing avoidable search can free resources for understanding. The effectiveness of each design change depends on material, prior knowledge, and the task. Mayer and Moreno (2003); Paas and van Merriënboer (2020).

Extraneous load is goal-dependent. A comparison exercise that seems inefficient for quick reading may be essential when the goal is to learn how to evaluate alternatives. A convenient shortcut can lower immediate effort while also removing an operation the learner needed to practice. Design quality therefore cannot be inferred from how effortless a task feels.

Germane load: a debated third category

Traditional CLT distinguishes germane load as mental resources directed toward building and refining useful knowledge structures. The idea captures a real distinction between productive learning activities and avoidable distraction, but the status of germane load as an independent, additive third type is debated. Some modern treatments place productive processing within intrinsic demands or discuss germane effort rather than a wholly separate source of load. Empirical attempts to separate the three dimensions through questionnaires have produced useful but imperfect results. de Jong (2010); Klepsch, Schmitz, and Seufert (2017); Krieglstein et al. (2022).

For a general psychology article, the secure conclusion is that task-related complexity and avoidable presentation demands affect processing, and invested effort can contribute differently to immediate performance and later learning. The exact decomposition into independent load types remains theory- and measurement-dependent.

Cognitive Load and Task Performance

Why accuracy and speed can change

As processing demands increase, a person may take longer to inspect inputs, choose an action, verify a result, or recover after interruption. Errors can rise when intermediate information is lost or competing responses become harder to resolve. Sometimes a person protects accuracy by slowing down; in other contexts, an imposed deadline encourages speed at the cost of accuracy. Consequently, reaction time, error rate, and perceived workload should be interpreted jointly and in relation to the experimental procedure. A slower response can reflect careful processing, an additional decision stage, or an actual processing constraint. Pashler (1994); Wickens (2008).

Performance is not necessarily a smooth, monotonic function of self-reported effort. People adjust strategies, allocate more effort, simplify goals, or abandon less important subtasks. A temporary increase in effort may sustain performance despite increased demands. A later decline might reflect a capacity limit, reduced engagement, fatigue, or a change in strategy. A study must distinguish these possibilities rather than assume that one metric identifies a single cognitive mechanism.

Task complexity, uncertainty, and time pressure

Complexity increases when steps depend on one another and must be coordinated. Uncertainty increases when a person must entertain several possibilities or verify what each signal means. Time pressure increases the need to decide and respond before processing is complete. These demands may interact: ambiguous instructions are especially troublesome when responses are rapid and mistakes are costly. Workload ratings and performance can move differently across these manipulations, which is a reason to measure the sources of demand separately. Hart and Staveland (1988)62386-9); Wickens (2008).

A task can also involve low informational volume and high cognitive load. A single unfamiliar proof, diagnosis-like reasoning exercise, or complex conditional rule may be mentally demanding without exposing someone to a flood of messages. Conversely, a large but well-organized set of familiar records may be easy to process with appropriate search and grouping tools.

Doing a task well and learning it well are different outcomes

Immediate task completion measures whether the person succeeded under current conditions. Learning measures a change in knowledge or capability that remains when supports change or are removed. Worked examples and explicit structure can reduce unnecessary cognitive demands for novices, improving comprehension and early performance. But a person who simply copies a solution may complete the task with little effort and acquire little transferable understanding. Studies of learning therefore need later testing, transfer assessments, or other measures of retained knowledge. Sweller (1988); Paas and van Merriënboer (2020).

Classic Experiments and Explanatory Models

Dual-task experiments and the bottleneck account

In a typical dual-task design, participants respond to two events presented at different intervals. Researchers compare the second task's response time and accuracy as the interval shrinks. A disproportionate delay in the second response can reveal interference in operations that cannot be executed independently in that configuration. Bottleneck theories emphasize structural constraints at particular processing stages; resource theories emphasize competition for limited processing capacity. Neither is a complete universal account of every task combination. Pashler (1994).

Multiple-resource models

Multiple-resource accounts distinguish processing dimensions and ask whether two activities compete for similar operations. They offer practical predictions for complex human-machine tasks, such as monitoring visual signals while acting on controls. Their utility depends on specifying the relevant tasks and validating predictions rather than assuming that sensory modalities function as isolated, unlimited channels. Wickens (2008).

Cognitive load during problem solving

Sweller's 1988 work argued that some conventional means–ends problem-solving strategies impose substantial processing demands without necessarily fostering the schemas needed for later expertise. The research shifted attention toward the relation among task design, problem-solving procedures, knowledge acquisition, and mental effort. Later research elaborated the roles of element interactivity, worked examples, and learner expertise. The strongest claims are about specific instructional conditions, not every domain of everyday concentration. Sweller (1988); Sweller et al. (2019).

Expertise reversal and why support can become redundant

The expertise reversal effect describes circumstances in which guidance that helps a beginner becomes unnecessary or even detrimental for a more knowledgeable learner. As schemas develop, repeated explanations can force an expert to process redundant steps instead of acting on established knowledge. This is a qualified, domain-specific research finding; it does not imply that all guidance harms experts or that a single design should be used for everyone. Kalyuga et al. (2003).

How Scientists Measure Cognitive Load

Because cognitive load is a theoretical construct rather than a directly observable substance, researchers infer it from converging observations. They should specify whether the target is perceived effort, task-imposed demand, interference with an additional activity, or a physiological correlate. Every operationalization captures only part of the picture. de Jong (2010); Krieglstein et al. (2022).

Self-report ratings and questionnaires

Single-item mental-effort scales ask participants how much effort they invested in a task. Multi-item questionnaires attempt to distinguish intrinsic, extraneous, and germane demand. Human-factors studies often use the NASA Task Load Index, whose dimensions include mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, performance, effort, and frustration. These measures are easy to administer but reflect interpretation, memory, expectations, and response style as well as the task. NASA-TLX is a multidimensional workload instrument; it should not be mislabeled as a direct biological measurement of cognitive capacity. Hart and Staveland (1988)62386-9); Klepsch et al. (2017).

A 2022 meta-analysis of cognitive-load questionnaires found generally satisfactory internal consistency, while relationships among proposed subtypes only partly matched theoretical assumptions. The study supports careful use of validated scales in appropriate settings and highlights unresolved construct-validity issues. Good reliability means responses are consistent under tested conditions; it does not by itself prove that a score isolates intrinsic demand or predicts performance in every setting. Krieglstein et al. (2022).

Behavioral indicators and secondary-task methods

Performance measures include accuracy, reaction time, error patterns, task completion, and decision consistency. In a secondary-task method, a small probe task is added to the primary activity; deterioration in the probe may indicate competition for processing resources. Yet the probe itself changes the task, and participants may prioritize one component over the other. A lower probe score could reflect strategic priority rather than an undifferentiated load threshold. Researchers should document instructions, task priority, practice, and the relation between probes and primary outcomes. Pashler (1994); Wickens (2008).

Eye tracking and physiological signals

Pupil size, gaze behavior, cardiovascular measures, electrodermal responses, and brain-based signals have been studied as possible correlates of mental workload. They can add temporal information and, in some environments, reduce reliance on retrospective reporting. However, pupil diameter also responds to light and other physiological states; heart rate and skin conductance can reflect emotional arousal, movement, stress, or effort for reasons that are not uniquely cognitive. Reviews have found promise but no single physiological measure that unambiguously identifies workload across tasks and populations. Charles and Nixon (2019); Skulmowski (2023).

Validity, interpretation, and reproducibility

A scientifically useful measure needs a clearly stated construct, appropriate task manipulation, reliability checks, and evidence of validity for the population and context. When a workload rating increases, a researcher should ask what manipulation caused it, what alternative explanations remain, and whether performance changed in the predicted way. Using several independent measures can strengthen inference, although agreement is never guaranteed. Preplanned contrasts, transparent exclusions, reported effect sizes, and reproducible procedures are especially important when many potential indicators are available. de Jong (2010); Krieglstein et al. (2022).

What Increases or Reduces Cognitive Load?

Task complexity and unfamiliarity are major sources of demand. Less obvious contributors include the number of unresolved choices, switching between incompatible representations, searching for scattered information, remembering instructions that could be visible, and monitoring competing signals. These factors create different mechanisms and require different remedies. Removing irrelevant decoration addresses one burden; providing an overview of a complex process addresses another; protecting a work interval from interruption addresses a third.

The best intervention follows from an analysis of the actual bottleneck. If a person repeatedly loses the next procedural step, a persistent checklist may reduce maintenance demands. If the person struggles to understand causally connected variables, a diagram exposing those relations can help. If the difficulty is an unfamiliar concept, simple simplification without conceptual explanation may only hide the missing knowledge. Mayer and Moreno (2003); Paas and van Merriënboer (2020).

Examples from everyday cognitive work

When comparing several complex offers, a side-by-side table can externalize attributes and reduce the need to hold each alternative in mind. The task still requires judging tradeoffs; the table changes memory and search requirements, not the responsibility for evaluating the evidence.

When explaining an unfamiliar system, a sequence that defines components before combining them can lower the burden of coordinating undefined terms. As familiarity grows, readers can move toward integrated explanations and more independent problem solving. Sweller et al. (2019).

When supervising several alerts, grouping signals by urgency and displaying the current state of the system may reduce avoidable visual searching. But aggressive simplification may conceal information necessary for recognizing an unusual event. Human-factors design therefore evaluates both workload and operational performance, including errors in difficult cases. Wickens (2008).

Cognitive Load, Memory, Attention, and Distraction

Cognitive load interacts with attention and working memory because relevant representations must be maintained while new input is selected and competing material is controlled. Yet the concepts identify different explanatory questions. Working-memory research asks how information is represented, held, and manipulated. Attention research asks which information receives priority. Cognitive load research asks how task demands and processing requirements affect what can be accomplished. The distinctions help a scientist identify the mechanism to test. Engle (2002); Cowan (2001).

Distraction may raise demand by requiring suppression or recovery, but overload can also arise during undistracted work if the task is highly complex. Similarly, apparent distractibility can result from conflicting priorities, insufficient instructions, low familiarity, or environmental interference. No single period of being overwhelmed identifies ADHD, depression, a memory disorder, or a lasting trait. These require separate clinical evidence and, where relevant, formal assessment.

Individual Differences and Context

Knowledge and expertise

Prior knowledge is one of the strongest reasons identical material can feel different across individuals. Experts can group details into meaningful structures, anticipate relevant information, and avoid repeated search. A novice may initially need more explicit support and opportunities to practice integrating components. The expertise reversal literature demonstrates why instructional recommendations should be conditioned on experience instead of presented as one-size-fits-all rules. Kalyuga et al. (2003).

Strategy, incentives, and task priorities

People change strategies under load. Some protect accuracy, some accelerate decisions, and some reduce the number of goals they pursue. Motivation and perceived consequences can change reported effort without eliminating cognitive constraints. What looks like a stable individual difference may partly reflect an instruction to prioritize speed rather than accuracy, or unequal experience with the task. Hart and Staveland (1988)62386-9); Pashler (1994).

Age, health, language, and culture

Development, aging, sleep status, sensory access, language proficiency, and educational experience can influence performance in load-inducing tasks. Their effects cannot be reduced to a single universal workload scale. Studies should make instructions accessible, report sample characteristics, distinguish between speed and accuracy, and evaluate whether instruments behave similarly across groups. Cross-cultural or clinical generalizations require evidence from the groups being discussed rather than extrapolation from small student samples.

Practical Implications Supported by Research

The most defensible application is to design and organize tasks so that cognitive resources are available for essential operations. Make goals and decision rules explicit; keep frequently needed information accessible; group related elements meaningfully; remove irrelevant search steps; and match guidance to prior knowledge. For complex new learning, provide clear examples and later opportunities for independent retrieval and transfer. Assess whether changes improve comprehension, error rates, retention, or task completion—not only whether participants say a task feels easier. Paas and van Merriënboer (2020); Mayer and Moreno (2003).

Reducing external demand may also be achieved through notes, diagrams, well-designed interfaces, and automated assistance. The tradeoff depends on whether the displaced operation was unnecessary overhead or a skill the person needed to learn. A system that automates verification can create new monitoring demands; a system that generates many alternative answers can increase selection and checking work. These are task-analysis questions, not grounds for claiming that technology always expands or diminishes attention.

Commercial claims that a generic exercise can permanently increase cognitive capacity, eliminate overload, or treat a clinical disorder require independent evidence of meaningful transfer and durable outcomes. A lower mental-effort score on a practiced exercise demonstrates adaptation to that task and may not generalize to unrelated activities. Scientific conclusions should identify the trained task, comparison group, outcome, follow-up interval, and transfer distance.

Limits of the Evidence and Competing Interpretations

The basic constraints of working memory and interference in demanding tasks are well established. Important interpretive questions remain open. Researchers disagree on how best to partition load into distinct kinds, how directly subjective ratings map onto theoretical constructs, whether bottlenecks or resources explain a particular interference effect, and which physiological indicators are specific enough for real-world use. Pashler (1994); de Jong (2010); Krieglstein et al. (2022).

Laboratory experiments often isolate a narrow mechanism with highly controlled tasks and short exposures. Everyday work combines changing goals, prior knowledge, environmental cues, motivation, and opportunities to reorganize the task. An effect on reaction time in a secondary-task experiment does not automatically predict workplace accident rates, classroom achievement, or long-term well-being. Those outcomes require appropriate field studies and convergent evidence.

Strong science therefore specifies the level of inference: an observed performance cost; a plausible processing mechanism; a theory-level account; or a demonstrated applied benefit. Keeping these levels distinct gives cognitive-load research explanatory power without treating every difficult mental experience as proof of one hidden capacity meter.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is cognitive load the same as stress?

Cognitive load concerns the processing demands of a task. Stress concerns responses to perceived challenges or threats and can influence cognition through many pathways. A demanding mathematical proof can produce high cognitive load without distress; emotional stress can disrupt attention even when the immediate information task is simple. Workload scales sometimes include frustration, so researchers must specify which dimension they are analyzing. Hart and Staveland (1988)62386-9).

Is high cognitive load always harmful?

No. Substantial effort may be necessary for reasoning, learning, or solving unfamiliar problems. The issue is whether mental processing is directed toward the goal and whether the person can manage the demands effectively. Removing irrelevant burden may improve learning, but removing all difficulty can remove useful practice. Paas and van Merriënboer (2020).

What is the difference between cognitive load and cognitive overload?

Cognitive load describes demands on processing. Cognitive overload describes a condition in which current demands exceed what can be handled efficiently, with consequences such as lost intermediate information or errors. There is no universal numerical threshold that separates the two across every task or person.

Can cognitive load be measured with one test?

No single test captures all proposed dimensions of load across contexts. Subjective ratings, task performance, secondary-task methods, and physiological measures each answer different questions. Good studies combine validated measures with controlled manipulations and clear hypotheses. Krieglstein et al. (2022); Charles and Nixon (2019).

Why can the same task feel easy to one person and hard to another?

Expertise changes how separate details are organized into meaningful units and how much control is needed to coordinate them. Instructions, language familiarity, strategy, motivation, and task priorities also matter. An equal amount of external information does not imply equal intrinsic or perceived demands. Kalyuga et al. (2003).

Does multitasking always double cognitive load?

No. Interference depends on the operations, modality, timing, priorities, and response requirements of the tasks. Certain processes show strong bottlenecks, while other task combinations overlap less. Load cannot be calculated simply by counting simultaneous activities. Pashler (1994); Wickens (2008).

Does reducing cognitive load always improve learning?

Reducing irrelevant search or confusing presentation can help. But very easy completion may involve following or copying without building durable knowledge. Learning needs to be evaluated with retention and transfer tests rather than short-term convenience alone. Sweller et al. (2019).

Related Articles

Working Memory: Definition, Models, Capacity, and Examples examines the temporary maintenance and manipulation of information that helps explain capacity constraints.

Information Overload vs Cognitive Overload: What Is the Difference? compares excess information input with excessive processing demands while preserving the distinct scientific questions.

Attention in the Age of AI: Focus, Cognitive Load, and Algorithmic Competition examines changing attentional conditions in digital environments, a separate canonical domain from fundamental cognitive-load psychology.

Cognitive Control: How the Mind Directs Goal-Focused Behavior — Explains regulation of attention and action according to goals and current demands.

Automatic vs Controlled Processing: Effort, Practice, and Attention — Compares practiced automatic processing with effortful goal-directed control.

References

Charles, R. L., & Nixon, J. (2019). Measuring mental workload using physiological measures: A systematic review. Applied Ergonomics, 74, 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.08.028.

Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922.

de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 105–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0.

Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00160.

Engle, R. W. (2018). Working memory and executive attention: A revisit. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 190–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617720478.

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). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-962386-9).

Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4.

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.

Krieglstein, F., Beege, M., Rey, G. D., Ginns, P., Krell, M., & Schneider, S. (2022). A systematic meta-analysis of the reliability and validity of subjective cognitive load questionnaires in experimental multimedia learning research. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 2485–2541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09683-4.

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6.

Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2020). Cognitive-load theory: Methods to manage working memory load in the learning of complex tasks. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(4), 394–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420922183.

Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.220.

Skulmowski, A. (2023). Guidelines for choosing cognitive load measures in perceptually rich environments. Mind, Brain, and Education, 17(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12342.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4.

Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5.

Wickens, C. D. (2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors, 50(3), 449–455. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288394.