Can multitasking impair concentration and memory?

Yes. When two tasks simultaneously require attention, working memory, decision-making, or action control, multitasking typically impairs concentration and performance. In most everyday situations, the brain doesn't perform two complex mental tasks in true parallel, but rather rapidly switches between them. Each such switch requires reactivating the goal and rules of the next task, resulting in a slight loss of time, an increased likelihood of error, and the potential for some attention to remain tied to the previous task for some time. [1]

However, the assertion that "all multitasking is harmful" is also incorrect. A person can simultaneously walk and talk, fold laundry and listen to a TV show, or perform other combinations if at least one activity is well-automated and the tasks compete little for the same cognitive resources. Practice can also reduce interference between specific two activities. But this does not mean that a person acquires the universal ability to simultaneously write a complex report, participate in correspondence, and listen attentively to a meeting without loss of focus. [2]

Fragmented multitasking is particularly unfavorable: a few minutes of work, a message, checking email, returning to the document, a call, another document, then a social network. In this situation, the problem lies not only in the number of tasks, but also in the frequency of forced attention switching and the need to repeatedly restore the context of the previous task. Reviews of interruption research consistently show a deterioration in the performance of the primary activity and the additional time required to resume it. [3]

What is multitasking really?

This one word covers several different situations, and their impact on concentration is not the same.

Dual-task processing occurs when information is truly being received simultaneously: for example, when driving and talking, or preparing food and listening to a lecture. If both tasks require response selection, control, or working memory, they begin to compete for limited information processing capacity. Psychological research calls this dual-task interference. [4]

Switching between tasks looks like multitasking, but in reality it's a rapid alternation: write a sentence → look at a message → return to the text → reply to an email → reopen the document. This is precisely the mode characteristic of much office work. Experiments show a persistent "switching cost": after changing tasks, reactions typically become slower and less accurate compared to repeating the same task. [5]

An interruption is different in that the switch isn't necessarily planned. A call, notification, a colleague's question, or a pop-up window forces you to temporarily stop your current activity and then resume it. A separate challenge is remembering at what point you stopped working. [6]

Finally, there's media multitasking—the simultaneous or rapidly alternating use of multiple streams of information: watching a movie while texting, attending a lecture while surfing social media, working on a computer while constantly checking your phone. This is where it's especially easy to confuse the short-term decline in attention during media switching with the idea of long-term "concentration impairment."

Why is it difficult for the brain to constantly switch?

To complete a task, the brain needs more than just "paying attention." It needs to hold the goal, the corresponding rule, and the necessary information in working memory.

Let's imagine a simple experiment. In one case, a person must determine whether a number is even or odd. In another, whether it's greater than five. If the rule remains the same, the brain maintains one setting. If the rule constantly changes, one must first stop using the old one, then set a new goal and activate the other rule.

Classic experiments by Joshua Rubinstein, David Meyer, and Jeffrey Evans demonstrated that such switching has a measurable time cost. This cost increased with more complex rules and decreased when participants received a hint about the next task in advance. The authors described two important processes: goal switching and the activation of the new task's rules. [7]

More recent reviews show that this isn't a single mechanism. Multitasking can involve bottlenecks in information processing, competition for working memory, the need to suppress previous intentions, and coordinate actions. Moreover, simultaneous task execution and rapid switching between them partially utilize common, but not entirely identical, mechanisms. [8]

Therefore, the statement "the brain is completely incapable of multitasking" is also too categorical. Some processing stages can indeed occur simultaneously. The limitations are particularly noticeable where two simultaneous tasks require central selection, control, and decision-making.

What is switching cost?

Switching cost is the loss of time or accuracy that occurs when switching from one task to another.

Typically, we're not talking about minutes after each small switch. In lab tasks, additional delays are often measured in fractions of a second. But if a person switches context hundreds of times a day, the accumulation of repeated switches and errors becomes more significant than the individual delay.

Cost also depends on complexity. Switching from sorting files to turning on a kettle is easier than going from writing a complex legal argument to analyzing an accounting spreadsheet and back. The more rules, intermediate results, and context need to be reconstructed, the greater the cognitive load. Task-switching experiments show precisely this dependence on rule complexity. [9]

Preparing for the task can reduce some of this loss. If a person knows in advance what the next task will be, the cognitive system has time to partially reorganize. However, even after preparation, the residual switching cost usually does not completely disappear. Attention studies show that the influence of the previous task can persist even after additional preparation time. [10]

Why does some of my attention remain on the previous task after switching?

Switching has another effect that can't be fully explained by reaction speed alone. A person may have already physically opened a new document, but mentally continues to process the email they were just writing.

Researcher Sophie Leroy called this state "residual attention." In her experiments, participants found it more difficult to fully focus on the next task if the previous one remained psychologically unfinished. Some mental activity continued to be devoted to the first task, and performance on the second task deteriorated. [11]

This fits well with everyday situations. A person is working on a financial calculation, receives an urgent question from a colleague, and switches to preparing an answer. Formally, they are now working on a new task, but numbers and unfinished solutions from the previous calculation are still present in their working memory.

Residual attention can be especially pronounced if a person knows they will have to quickly return to unfinished work. In four studies by Leroy and Teresa Glomb, briefly planning a return to an interrupted task reduced residual attention and helped improve performance on a new task that suddenly arose. [12]

So one of the most practical strategies when faced with the inevitable interruption is to write down exactly where you left off and what your next step should be when you return before switching.

Why do you have to start working again after an interruption?

Resuming a complex task requires re-establishing its internal state. It's necessary to recall the goal, recent actions, unfinished business, and what was planned next.

Research shows what's known as a resumption delay: after an interruption, it takes a person additional time before work returns to normal. The longer the interruption, the longer this delay can be, although its magnitude varies greatly depending on the nature of the task and individual working memory characteristics. [13]

In real-world settings, the problem may be even more complex than in the laboratory. In a study of intensive care unit workers, longer interruptions and changes in physical work locations were associated with longer recovery times to the original task. However, people naturally used compensatory strategies that reduced memory load. [14]

This explains the familiar feeling after a phone call in the middle of a complex document: "What exactly was I just doing?" Several minutes may be spent not on the solution itself, but on restoring the cognitive model of the task.

Notifications are annoying even when they are answered quickly.

A notification seems like a small event: it only takes a few seconds to look at a message. But when it comes to attention, it's not just the response time that matters.

Upon receiving a notification, a person first detects the new stimulus, decides how important it is, sometimes reads the message, and then must return the previous goal to working memory. It is this chain that creates the switch.

Experimental studies using smartphones show that receiving notifications during sustained attention tasks can impair performance. For example, a 2025 study examined the effects of visual and auditory notifications during a sustained attention task; the notifications themselves altered participants' responses and acted as distracting stimuli. [15]

However, this doesn't mean that every notification "ruins concentration for twenty minutes." Recovery time depends on the task, the nature of the interruption, the moment it occurred, and how deeply immersed the person was in the work. Figures obtained in one specific study or work environment cannot be taken as a universal law.

Why complex tasks suffer especially

Multitasking is most problematic when tasks with high demands on working memory and control are competing simultaneously.

Writing complex text requires maintaining the structure of an argument, the meaning of previous sentences, the intended conclusion, and the language used. Switching to messages every few minutes requires re-establishing some of this temporarily active context.

Simple, automated actions are less sensitive. A person can relatively successfully listen to a calm conversation while walking, because normal walking in a healthy adult is largely automated. But if the route becomes complex, a busy road needs to be crossed, or the conversation requires complex calculations, competition increases.

Contemporary reviews of dual-task performance show exactly this picture: the amount of interference depends on the demands of specific tasks, the number of overlapping cognitive processes, and the degree of their automation. [16]

Multitasking and working memory

Working memory allows us to temporarily retain information we're currently using. For example, when calculating the cost of an order, we have to keep several numbers in mind while performing the next operation.

Switching creates competition for this temporary space. The new task brings its own goals and data that must be retained, and elements of the previous task begin to be displaced or become less accessible.

Therefore, after a series of switches, a feeling arises not only of poor concentration, but also of forgetfulness: a person returns to the original task and no longer remembers what he wanted to do next.

Studies of people who frequently juggle multiple media streams have found a link between intensive media multitasking and lower working and long-term memory scores. However, these studies are primarily observational, so they demonstrate a link rather than prove that multitasking habits are the cause of memory impairment. [17]

Does multitasking interfere with remembering new information?

Yes, if attention is constantly divided or switched during learning, information is usually encoded worse.

To form a long-term memory, new information must first be sufficiently processed. If some of your attention is occupied by messages, notifications, or another task, the material may be perceived more superficially.

This is why watching a lecture while actively texting is different from watching it with full concentration. A person may subjectively feel like they've "heard everything," but some of the information hasn't been processed deeply enough.

Studies of media multitasking have linked more intense simultaneous media use with poorer working memory, and working memory, in turn, predicted long-term recall performance. This doesn't prove permanent memory impairment, but it is consistent with the idea that divided attention impairs learning. [18]

What research on media multitasking shows

The evidence here is more complex than popular articles sometimes make it out to be.

A 2023 study with 924 participants found a link between greater media multitasking and poorer sustained attention. The link was found across both questionnaires and an objective attention task, although its magnitude was moderate. [19]

But other studies have found less clear results. A meta-analysis of studies of cognitive control in active media multitaskers found only a small overall association, which depended heavily on the measurement methods and the specific cognitive function. The authors specifically noted that the question of causality remains open. [20]

A large 2021 study of task switching found no association at all between the level of media multitasking and switching costs after more carefully separating out the different components of the experimental task.[21]

There are even studies showing that people with pronounced media multitasking were faster at switching in certain lab tests. The authors emphasized two possible interpretations: either frequent switching actually trains this skill, or people who are initially more prone to quickly switching attention are more likely to choose this style of technology use. [22]

Therefore, the most correct conclusion is this: frequent media multitasking is associated with some differences in attention and memory, but it is not yet possible to confidently assert that it is precisely this that causes a chronic deterioration in concentration.

Does multitasking damage your brain in the long term?

There is no evidence that regular multitasking physically "damages the brain."

Research has convincingly demonstrated the short-term cost of switching and interference between competing tasks. It's much more difficult to prove that years of phone use and multiple media streams cause an irreversible decline in concentration.

The main issue is causality. Someone with high impulsivity, a strong need for new stimuli, or a naturally less stable attention span may switch between apps more frequently. In this case, media multitasking is not only a possible cause but also a consequence of individual differences.

This is why meta-analyses in this area continue to highlight the heterogeneity of results and the need for longitudinal and experimental studies. [23]

This doesn't mean the habit is harmless. If a workday consists of constant switching, a person may objectively work slower and make more mistakes in the here and now, even without any long-term damage to the nervous system.

Is it possible to get used to multitasking and become better at it?

Yes, a specific combination of tasks can be trained. But transferability to other situations is limited.

A review of dual-task research shows that after specific practice, people do improve at coordinating two specific actions simultaneously. Improvements were found for combinations of sensorimotor, work, and motor-cognitive tasks. [24]

A modern review from 2024 also confirms that long-term practice can reduce interference between the two tasks. Possible mechanisms include more efficient coordination and loading of information into working memory. [25]

But the improvement is often specialized. In an experiment with intensive dynamic multitasking training, participants significantly improved their trained dual-task performance, but the benefits did not transfer to other action control tasks. [26]

So a person may become an excellent operator of a particular complex system, or learn to drive a car and carry on a simple conversation, but it doesn't follow that constantly switching between email, programming, and social media will make them universally better at concentrating.

When two tasks can be combined relatively safely

The most favorable combinations are those where one activity is well automated, tasks use different processing channels, and errors do not pose a serious risk.

For example, for a healthy adult, taking a leisurely walk and listening to a podcast typically involve significantly less competition than reading a scientific text and listening to another meaningful text. In the latter case, both tasks require language processing and content comprehension, so the competition is much higher.

Even automated activities cease to be automated when the situation becomes complex. Conversation while driving may seem easy on an empty road, but the need to simultaneously assess a complex traffic situation dramatically increases attentional demands.

Therefore, the practical question should not be “can I do two things?”, but “do both things require conscious control now?”

Does music count as multitasking?

Not always in the sense in which multitasking is studied in cognitive psychology.

Background music may require little or no active processing, especially if it's familiar and the listener isn't listening to the lyrics. In this case, competition with the main task is significantly less than when simultaneously texting.

Studies on the effects of background music yield mixed results. In a 2023 experiment, self-selected music did not impair text comprehension on average, although eye movement data indicated increased cognitive load during some stages of reading. [27]

In tasks of sustained monotonous attention, favorite music sometimes even reduced mind wandering and helped maintain subjective engagement, without necessarily improving objective performance. [28]

Therefore, there's no universal rule of "working only in silence." However, if the task involves understanding complex text, writing new material, or memorizing, music with clearly distinguishable lyrics can create additional linguistic competition. Individual performance is best assessed by the quality of the work, not by the perceived pleasantness of the background music.

Why Multitasking Sometimes Feels More Productive

Switching creates a feeling of intense activity. In a short period of time, a person sees many new stimuli, responds to several people, completes small tasks, and constantly feels like they're making progress.

But the number of switches and the number of completed actions are not the same thing. If complex work requires long-term context retention, numerous short actions can crowd out the very activity that has the greatest value.

Moreover, an easy new task is often subjectively more attractive than a difficult old one. Checking a message is easier than continuing an analysis where a person is stuck. Therefore, part of "multitasking" may actually be a way to avoid difficult cognitive effort.

A modern study from 2026 showed that switching behavior depends not only on the objective difficulty of tasks, but also on their priority: people maintained attention longer on higher-priority activities, and increasing difficulty changed the frequency of switching. This once again demonstrates that multitasking is a result of managing limited attention, and not simply the brain's ability to keep multiple windows open. [29]

Why do you constantly want to check your phone?

Not every switch is triggered by an external notification. A person can open email or a social network on their own without any signal.

The cause may be boredom, decreased motivation, habit, reward anticipation, or the desire to avoid a difficult task. In studies of sustained attention, the frequency of media multitasking increased as the monotonous task progressed, and higher motivation partially mitigated this increase. [30]

Therefore, technical measures alone are sometimes insufficient. Disabling notifications eliminates external interruptions, but does not prevent a person from manually opening the phone every two minutes.

It's helpful to notice when the urge to switch occurs. If it happens precisely when the work becomes challenging, the solution lies not only with the phone but also with effort management, interruptions, and task structure.

Which is more effective?

Completely eliminating interruptions from real life is neither possible nor necessary. The workday includes multiple tasks, interactions, and unexpected events.

The main goal is to reduce unnecessary switching during activities that require deep concentration and to make the inevitable transitions more manageable.

It's useful to distinguish between planned and reactive switching. When a person has completed a semantic block and moves on to the next task, they can store the context in advance. When interrupted by messages every few minutes, the switch occurs at an inconvenient moment and often leaves an unfinished cognitive context.

A systematic review of 33 laboratory experiments found that interruption management techniques can improve task accuracy and reduce task resumption time, although effectiveness depends on the type of task and the specific intervention.[31]

How to Reduce the Impact of Multitasking on Concentration

For tasks that require thinking, the most practical strategy is to set aside periods when one main task takes priority, and messages and minor tasks are temporarily unanswered. This doesn't mean you have to work in strictly defined intervals: there's no scientific basis for considering, for example, exactly 25 or 50 minutes as a universal optimum.

Disabling unnecessary notifications reduces the number of unpredictable external interruptions. Email and messages can be checked in scheduled blocks if your work and responsibilities allow. This is especially useful for writing, programming, data analysis, teaching, and other tasks that require maintaining a high level of context.

If an interruption is unavoidable, it is helpful to leave a short note before switching: "stopped here; already done this; next step is this." Experimental evidence shows that such a return plan reduces residual attention and helps focus on the new task. [32]

It makes sense to combine similar tasks. For example, processing several emails in a row usually requires fewer context changes than alternating each email with writing a report.

The most complex tasks are best performed during periods when there's less risk of external interruptions. For automated household tasks, the requirements may be more relaxed: listening to audio while walking or cleaning is perfectly acceptable, as long as the combination doesn't compromise the safety or quality of the primary activity.

Situation	Why does concentration suffer?	What can be done
Working on a complex document and constant correspondence	Multiple changes of purpose and rules	Check messages in separate blocks
A sudden call in the middle of a difficult task	Active context is lost	Before answering, write down the next step.
Several unfinished projects	Part of the attention remains tied to other tasks	Make clear stopping points and continuation plans
Studying while using social media	New information is encoded through divided attention	Remove the competing stream for the duration of the study.
Simple automated action plus audio	Competition is usually lower	Acceptable if quality and safety are not compromised
Constantly checking your phone yourself	Switching becomes a habit	Remove the phone from sight and schedule a time to check
Work is no longer progressing due to fatigue.	A person begins to look for new stimuli	Take a real break, rather than replacing work with another screen

Single-tasking doesn't mean working for hours without a break.

Concentrated work and lack of rest are two different things.

Sustained attention naturally changes over time. With prolonged monotonous tasks, mind wandering increases, motivation decreases, and the desire to switch gears increases. Modern research confirms a decline in attention over time and an increase in spontaneous media multitasking against a background of declining motivation. [33]

Therefore, a sensible break is not the same as a destructive interruption. The difference is that a person consciously completes a meaningful fragment, notes the point where they stopped, and temporarily stops working, rather than shifting their attention to a new stream of information every two minutes.

Sometimes a short, full-fledged rest is more beneficial than “rest” in the form of social networks, which only replaces one stream of information with another.

When Concentration Problems Can't Be Explained by Multitasking Alone

If a person concentrates well when they put their phone away, close unnecessary programs, and focus on one task, the role of external fragmentation is quite likely.

But if concentration remains sharply reduced even in a calm environment, has appeared recently, is progressing, or is starting to interfere with everyday life, you shouldn’t attribute it to the habit of working with multiple windows.

Attention is affected by sleep, fatigue, mood, anxiety, medications, and a variety of medical factors. Furthermore, persistent attention problems can be present in ADHD and other conditions. Multitasking alone precludes any of these diagnoses.

A useful practical test is not a medical diagnosis, but an observation: if you significantly reduce notifications and switching frequency for several weeks, and the quality of concentration remains almost unchanged, it is likely that additional causes should be sought.

What is often misunderstood

"The human brain is generally incapable of doing two things at once." That's too categorical. Some processes can be performed in parallel, especially if one task is automated. Limitations become apparent when both require response selection, working memory, or cognitive control. [34]

"Each switch takes twenty minutes." There is no universal figure. Research demonstrates both short laboratory switch costs and significantly longer recovery times in complex real-world work. The magnitude depends on the task, the duration of the interruption, and the context. [35]

"If you multitask frequently, your brain will learn to work perfectly in parallel." Practice can improve specific combinations of tasks, but transfer to other types of multitasking is limited. [36]

"People who use multiple media regularly necessarily have poor attention." No. On average, some studies find a link, but the results are inconsistent and causality has not been established. [37]

"Multitasking irreversibly damages the brain." There is no such evidence. The most convincing evidence is the direct losses in productivity, attention, and memory associated with competing tasks and frequent switching.

Key points from experts

David E. Meyer, PhD, is a Distinguished Service Professor of Mathematical Psychology and Cognitive Science at the University of Michigan, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and co-director of the Laboratory of Brain, Cognition, and Action. His research program covers attention, working memory, executive control, and multitasking. [38]

Experimental work by Meyer and colleagues demonstrated that switching between tasks requires a goal change and reactivation of rules. Switching costs increase with increasing rule complexity, although advance information about the next task can reduce them. These findings underlie a more precise understanding of multitasking as the management of competing tasks, rather than as unlimited parallel thought. [39]

Sophie Leroy, Ph.D., is a professor of management and dean of the University of Washington School of Business at Bothell. Her research focuses on how interruptions and transitions between work tasks affect focus and performance; she coined the term attention residual. [40]

Her research showed that after moving on to the next task, some attention may remain tied to the previous one, especially if it is unfinished. In further experiments, a short plan to return to the interrupted activity reduced this effect and helped improve focus on the new task. [41]

Gloria Mark, PhD, is a professor of computer science at the University of California, Irvine. Her research on human interaction with digital technologies focuses on multitasking, email, interruptions, attention, and stress in real-world work environments. [42]

Mark's research program demonstrates that digital work environments are characterized by high rates of attentional switching and that returning to an interrupted project requires contextual restoration. These findings complement laboratory studies by examining real work processes, not just simplified tasks. [43]

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it true that multitasking makes concentration worse?

Yes, when two tasks compete for attention and cognitive control. The effect is especially pronounced for complex tasks and frequent switching between them. [44]

Does the brain actually switch and not work simultaneously?

For many complex mental operations, yes, to a large extent. Some processing stages can occur in parallel, but action selection and cognitive control often create bottlenecks, so that performance of one task interferes with another. [45]

Is it possible to watch a lecture and reply to messages at the same time?

While it's possible to physically perform both tasks, the quality of lecture comprehension will likely be reduced if the messages require reading, comprehending, and responding. Both tasks compete for language processing, attention, and working memory.

Is it possible to listen to music while working?

Yes, as long as the music doesn't interfere with the specific task. Research shows mixed results: for some people, selected background music reduces mind wandering, but during complex reading tasks, it can increase cognitive load. [46]

Is it useful to turn off notifications?

For work that requires sustained concentration, this is a reasonable measure: it reduces the number of unplanned switches. Experimental studies show that notifications can disrupt performance on sustained attention tasks. [47]

What should I do if I'm constantly interrupted at work?

Before a forced switch, it's helpful to leave a short note about the current task state and the next step. Research shows that such a return plan can reduce residual attention. [48]

Can multitasking impair memory?

During multitasking itself, yes: divided attention and competition for working memory can impair the retention of new information. Evidence for long-term, irreversible memory impairment due to the habit of multitasking itself is significantly weaker. [49]

Is it possible to learn to multitask well?

It is possible to become better at specific task combinations. Practice reduces dual-task interference, but the resulting advantage often transfers poorly to completely different activities. [50]

Is it true that young people are better at multitasking?

Young age alone doesn't eliminate fundamental limitations of attention. People may have different levels of experience and switching speed, but the competition between cognitive processes remains.

Is multitasking dangerous for the brain?

There is no evidence that regular multitasking physically damages a healthy brain. The main proven effect is impairment of performance on competing tasks and additional attentional strain.

Which is better: one long period of concentration or many short ones?

There's no universal interval. For complex activities, maintaining a single context for a sufficiently long period is beneficial, but the duration should take into account fatigue and the natural decline in sustained attention. Breaks are beneficial if they are planned and don't degenerate into an endless stream of information.

Conclusion

Multitasking can indeed impair concentration, primarily due to constant switching between tasks, competition for working memory, and residual attention after interruptions. The more complex the tasks and the more frequently a person switches contexts, the greater the likelihood of wasted time, errors, and the feeling of "being unable to concentrate." [51]

Not every simultaneous action is a problem, however. Well-automated and low-competition tasks can be combined significantly more successfully, and practice can reduce interference in specific combinations. Therefore, the goal is not to completely eliminate all parallel actions, but to protect complex mental work from unnecessary switching. [52]

The link between constant media multitasking and long-term attentional decline cannot yet be considered causally proven. Studies find associations, but the results are inconsistent. For everyday practice, another conclusion has been much more reliably established: when high-quality thinking, studying, writing, or making complex decisions is required, fewer switches are usually better. [53]