Risko, E. F. and Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20(9), 676–688. DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002
Key takeaways
Read in full (NOTE-887). A short review that defines cognitive offloading as physical action that changes a task’s information-processing requirements to reduce cognitive demand, splits it into offloading onto the body and into the world, and proposes a metacognitive model: whether people offload is a strategy choice driven by their evaluation of internal versus extended strategies, which tracks objective internal demand but can be wrong, and offloading in turn changes both memory and those evaluations. The evidence is a handful of choice/no-choice studies, summarised qualitatively; the review reports no effect sizes and no formal account of costs. It names costs (memory for offloaded content, GPS-impaired spatial memory, photo-taking impairment, automation complacency and bias, skill decay, inflated self-knowledge, a self-reinforcing drift toward external reliance). It does not frame offloading as computation reused over time, and says nothing about how often an offloaded result is used.
Why this is here
The owner, after the cockpit reading (LIT-1066): “amortized retrieval is actually a kind of amortized computation. there’s probably a clearer relationship here that I imagine has likely been clarified/formalized at some point in the 30 years since the cockpit essay was published.” Registered with six others for QUESTION-095.
The later review that ties offloading to the decision whether to offload, which is QUESTION-095’s second half.