Claims

Confirmatory physiological tests found no significant tool×task interactions for pupil Δ or ln RMSSD, with substantial data loss limiting interpretation

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? No significant tool×task interaction for pupil Δ after Holm correction (pHolm=.308). → Bergh 2026 q3 i? No significant tool×task interaction for ln RMSSD (pHolm=.853); the article says the cardiac result should be read as inconclusive. → Bergh 2026 (2)

Evidence

Bergh 2026

Bergh, C., Tag, B., Vassar, A., & Renzella, J. (2026). Your Programming Students'Cognition with ChatGPT: Higher Performance, Lower Retention, and Reduced Ownership. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.21194 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.21194

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Confirmatory likelihood-ratio test on task-baseline pupil diameter delta recorded with a Tobii Pro Spectrum; only quality-gated intervals were analysed (79–87% retained per interval). The interaction was not significant; an exploratory Task 3 contrast showed a larger negative pupil Δ for AI-Assisted participants.

"There was no significant tool ×task interaction for pupil Δ (𝜒 2(2)= 4.56,𝑝=. 103,𝑝Holm =. 308) and remains insignificant after Holm correction"

Bergh 2026 (2)

Bergh, C., Tag, B., Vassar, A., & Renzella, J. (2026). Your Programming Students'Cognition with ChatGPT: Higher Performance, Lower Retention, and Reduced Ownership. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.21194. doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.21194

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Confirmatory test on heart rate variability (ln RMSSD from a Polar Verity Sense); only 25–36% of intervals survived quality gates. The article states the cardiac insignificance should be read as inconclusive rather than as evidence of no group difference.

"There was no significant tool×task interaction for ln RMSSD (𝜒 2(2)= 0.32,𝑝=. 853,𝑝Holm =. 853) and remained insignificant after Holm correction"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id physiological-load-signals-no-group-differences
title Confirmatory physiological tests found no significant tool×task interactions for pupil Δ or ln RMSSD, with substantial data loss limiting interpretation
description Confirmatory physiological tests found no significant tool×task interactions for pupil Δ or ln RMSSD, with substantial data loss limiting interpretation
status review
evidence_strength weak
newest_evidence 2026
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-10
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 2 — bergh-2026, bergh-2026-2

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.