評論
打印
That’s Doug Parry, a lecturer at Stellenbosch University, who studies socioinformatics and who did the meta-analysis—a study in which data from multiple published papers are combined together and reanalyzed.
這是斯坦林布什大學的講師道格·帕里，他的研究領域是社會信息學，這項元分析也是他的研究。元分析是指將多篇刊發論文的數據進行整合并重新分析的研究方法。
Parry became interested in brain drain first from studying multitasking and then from investigating something called “online vigilance…”
帕里對認知流失開始感興趣，是因為他起初研究了多任務處理，然后研究了一種名為“在線警覺……”的東西。
…which is essentially this idea that we’re constantly aware of the online world, the mobile world around us.
本質上，這個概念是說我們會不斷意識到網絡世界和我們周圍的移動世界。
We’re thinking, we’re ruminating about, you know, the news cycle, the—our friends and family that we can connect to through our—through our phone, and so on.
我們在思考，我們在反復思考，包括循環播放的新聞、可以通過手機取得聯系的朋友和家人等等?！?/p>
Parry’s work on "online vigilance" led him to wonder how strong brain drain’s effects really are.
帕里對“在線警覺”的研究讓他想知道認知流失的影響到底有多嚴重。
I saw that there’s a need to kind of bring together the sort of 20 to 30 studies that have been conducted over the last—it’s about seven or eight years—on this phenomenon,
我發現有必要把先前關于這一現象的二三十項研究整合起來，這些研究大概跨時7到8年,
and see across the studies “What do we actually know about the so-called brain drain hypothesis?” and, that is, “It’s a meaningful effect? Is it a consistent effect?”
縱覽這些研究，看看“我們到底了解認知流失假說什么?”，換言之，“這會是一個有意義的影響? 這會是一個持續的影響嗎?”
Past studies on brain drain looked primarily at five cognitive functions: working memory, sustained attention, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility and fluid intelligence.
先前關于認知流失的研究主要關注五種認知功能: 工作記憶、持續性注意力、抑制性控制、認知靈活性和流體智力。
Parry lumped together data for each of these functions individually and then did a sixth analysis where he looked at all the results together.
帕里先把這五個認知功能的數據單獨放在一起看，之后，他在第六次分析中又把所有結果放在一起看。
In the end, he looked at 56 effect sizes on how phones affect our minds from 27 studies in 25 publications.
最后，他找出25份刊發論文中的27項研究，并對56種關于手機多大程度會影響大腦的研究進行了分析。
So looking at the five separate analyses–of the five, the only statistically significant result was for working memory.
閱覽這五種不同認知功能的分析，唯一有統計學意義的研究結果是工作記憶。
Whereas for the other four cognitive functions, no statistically significant effects of the presence of a smartphone were found across the various effects included in those analyses.
而其他四種認知功能的統計學結果并不顯著，在這些影響研究中，暫未發現智能手機的存在對認知功能有統計學上的顯著影響。
And that is somewhat consistent with Ward and colleagues.
這項研究結果在某種程度上與沃德團隊是一致的。
So they found a negative effect for working memory, but they didn’t find a negative effect for sustained attention.
他們發現手機的存在對工作記憶有負面影響，但他們尚未發現這對持續性注意力有負面影響。
Though it is similar to what Ward found, Parry’s analysis also revealed the impact on working memory was much smaller than initial studies indicated.
雖然這與沃德的發現相似，但帕里的分析還表明，對工作記憶的影響要比最初研究指出的要小得多。
I think the important difference here with this meta-analysis, compared to the Ward 2017 paper, is the magnitude of the effect.
我認為，與沃德2017年的論文相比，元分析重要的差異在影響大小上。
This matters because it can tell us whether our phones are completely diverting our attention by their mere presence or simply affecting one aspect of our cognition slightly.
這一點很重要，因為影響大小能夠表明，僅僅把手機放一邊就可以完全轉移我們的注意力，還是只是略微影響了我們認知的某一方面。
