Why notifications interfere with your focus and what to do about it

Constant notifications interfere with concentration because each one competes with the current task for limited attentional resources. Even a short sound, vibration, or pop-up banner can force the brain to momentarily process the new signal, assess its significance, and decide whether to respond. If a person opens the message, a full-fledged task switch occurs, requiring the user to reestablish the context of the previous task. Research shows that performance on an attention-demanding task can be impaired even when the notification is not opened at all. [1]

The effect is particularly noticeable during reading complex text, studying, programming, writing documents, performing calculations, and other activities that require simultaneously retaining multiple pieces of information. The higher the cognitive load of the primary task, the more costly the additional switching is. A recent review of digital multitasking research confirms the general principle: performing several tasks simultaneously or in rapid succession usually impairs at least some performance, although the magnitude of the effect depends on the complexity, similarity, and timing of the tasks. [2]

Notifications, however, do not "destroy the brain," and there is no evidence that they irreversibly impair a person's ability to concentrate. The most reliable studies show immediate distraction, additional attentional shifts, impairment of some task performance and learning, and a subjective feeling of increased distraction. There is significantly less evidence to suggest that notifications themselves cause persistent impairment of attention over years. [3]

What happens to attention when a notification appears

A notification is created precisely to be noticed. A sound, vibration, a change in the image on the screen, or the appearance of text represents a new stimulus that wasn't there a second ago. The attention system must at least briefly determine whether it's relevant: an urgent message, a work email, a promotion, a calendar reminder, or something that can be ignored.

Even the decision not to look isn't always without cognitive costs. In an experiment by psychologists at Florida State University, participants performed an attention-demanding task while their phones periodically received notifications of messages and calls. Participants weren't required to pick up their phones or respond. However, the notifications themselves statistically significantly impaired performance on the primary task. The authors suggested that one mechanism is the emergence of extraneous thoughts: the signal already reminds the person of the phone, the message, or the possible content of the conversation. [4]

Thus, the actual chain may appear significantly longer than it appears to the human eye. The screen may only light up for a second, but the brain has time to notice the change, recognize the source, assess its potential importance, and suppress the urge to check the phone. If the notification contains text—the sender's name, the beginning of the message, or the subject line—then the semantic information itself begins to compete with the primary task.

This is why the phrase "I don't open notifications, so they don't bother me" doesn't quite fit the experimental data. Not opening a message is more beneficial than starting a conversation, but the lack of direct interaction with the smartphone doesn't make the notification cognitively neutral. [5]

Why is it difficult for the brain to instantly return to a previous task?

When a person switches between tasks, they change more than just the object of their gaze. They need to recreate a set of rules, goals, and information relevant to the new activity. When writing a report, this might be the logic of the last paragraph; when programming, the state of several variables and the reason for the previous change; when reading, the author's argument and its connection to the previous text.

Decades of research on task switching have demonstrated the so-called switching cost: after switching tasks, reactions often become slower or less accurate than when performing the same action sequentially. A modern review of digital multitasking attributes this effect to the limited capacity of the cognitive system and the need to allocate limited resources between competing tasks. [6]

The notification is therefore particularly inconvenient because it appears not when a person has completed a semantic block, but at a random moment. The message may arrive in the middle of a sentence, a calculation, or a decision. Research on digital interruptions shows that the timing of the interruption matters: switching during a natural pause is usually less disruptive than interrupting during an ongoing operation. [7]

Frequent notifications turn isolated, small interruptions into constant fragmentation. A person doesn't necessarily spend a lot of time directly in the messenger; it's enough to regularly fall out of the context of their main work. Therefore, the subjective feeling of "I only took ten seconds to respond" may significantly underestimate the true cost of such a regimen.

Is it true that it takes 23 minutes after each notification to regain focus?

No. The popular claim that after any interruption, a person necessarily needs "23 minutes and 15 seconds to regain concentration" is an inaccurate retelling of the research.

In a 2005 study by Gloria Mark, Victor Gonzalez, and Justin Harris, researchers observed 24 information workers at their desks. When interrupted work was resumed later that day, the average interval before returning was 25 minutes and 26 seconds. However, during this time, people spent almost half an hour trying to refocus on the old task; before returning, they engaged in an average of approximately 2.3 other work activities. The study measured the time until they actually returned to the interrupted activity, not the biologically necessary time to regain attention. [8]

Therefore, there is no universal recovery time after a notification. After a minor interruption, a person can sometimes resume work almost immediately; after a message that forces them to open email, read correspondence, and solve a new problem, recovery will take significantly longer. This is influenced by the complexity of the original task, the nature of the interruption, the number of additional actions, and how deeply immersed the person was in the work.

This nuance has practical significance: we need to fight not the mythical “23 minutes,” but the number of unnecessary switches and how far one notification takes a person away from the original task.

Why Complex Work Suffer More

The more information a person must simultaneously retain in their mind, the more sensitive the task is to interruptions. A simple, mechanical operation is usually easier to resume from where it started. However, if a person is constructing a complex argument, understanding a legal document, or comparing several indicators, some of the necessary information is stored in working memory—the system for short-term active information retention.

Modern models of multitasking assume that cognitive resources are limited. When a new task demands the same resources as the primary task, competition increases. Therefore, the effect of distraction depends not only on the notification itself, but also on what the person was doing at the time. [9]

A study of virtual learning published in 2025 clearly demonstrates this effect. The experiment involved 240 students: the researchers varied the difficulty of the course material and the presence of extraneous pop-up notifications. Both high course material difficulty and notifications independently impaired attention and memory; a combination of the two factors produced the most unfavorable results. The authors also found that changes in attention partially explained the decline in information retention. [10]

The practical conclusion that follows from this is that it is especially advisable to limit notifications not equally at all times of life, but especially during tasks with high mental load.

How Notifications Affect Learning and Memory

For information to be stored in memory, it must first be perceived and processed well enough. If attention is diverted to another stimulus at a critical moment, some of the material may be less well encoded. This is especially noticeable during lectures, conversations, and videos, which continue regardless of whether a person is distracted or not.

In a 2022 experiment, 93 students watched a short lecture. Some simultaneously played a simple smartphone game and received notifications, others played without notifications, and a control group only watched the lecture. The group with notifications performed worse on a post-test than the control group; the difference was moderate. Participants did not rate their performance as significantly worse. The study was small and used an artificial short lecture model, so it cannot be generalized to all learning, but it does demonstrate an important point: people are not always good at noticing their own lapses in attention. [11]

The effect is not the same in all conditions. In another experiment by the same research group, participants were able to read the text at their own pace and return to missed material; no significant impairment of final test performance was observed due to the game and notifications. This highlights the role of context: if a task can be stopped and reread, a person can partially compensate for the distraction with additional time. [12]

Therefore, a notification while watching a lecture, talking to a doctor, or attending a meeting is potentially more dangerous than while reading a document you can easily return to. In the latter case, the cost may be more in the form of additional time and effort than in the ultimate loss of information.

Why one notification sometimes turns into several minutes of distraction

A notification isn't necessarily the final event. It can be the entry point to another chain of actions. A person opens a message, responds, notices another unread message, sees a new email, then remembers another task. The initial signal lasts a second, but the actual transition takes much longer.

Research on real-world work demonstrates precisely this fragmentation. In the observations of Gloria Mark and colleagues, interrupted activities were often resumed only after the individual had managed to move on to several other work activities. The authors emphasized that interruptions can disrupt the broader context of work, and that return sometimes requires reorientation and even repetition of previous work. [13]

Therefore, it's useful to distinguish two effects of notification. The first is the brief, automatic distraction provided by the signal itself. The second is the behavioral chain that begins when a person decides to respond to it. For complex tasks, the second effect is potentially much more important than the first.

Are all notifications equally annoying?

No. Their impact depends on visibility, content, personal significance, the current task, and the user's expectations. A message from a loved one during an important meeting can capture attention more than an advertising notification from an unknown app. Similarly, a notification about a work issue can trigger prolonged consideration even after a user has decided not to respond.

The modern model of digital multitasking views behavior as more than just a consequence of the brain's limitations. It simultaneously involves cognitive system characteristics, individual predispositions, a person's perceptions of their own ability to multitask, the value of the current and alternative tasks, and the digital environment itself. A notification can be barely distracting to the same person during boring, mechanical work, yet abruptly disrupt them from a complex task if the message seems more urgent or appealing. [14]

Therefore, it's impossible to create a universal rating of "sound is twice as bad as vibration" or define a single safe type of notification. A 2015 study confirms that both sound and tactile cues can disrupt attention. It's more practical to reduce unnecessary cues, regardless of their form. [15]

Will simply turning on silent mode help?

While silent mode may reduce external interruptions, it doesn't guarantee that a person will check their phone less often. If the screen continues to light up, banners, or unread message icons appear, the visual cue remains. Even without any signal, a person may begin checking the device themselves.

A 2022 study used objective behavioral data from 138 smartphone owners. People, on average, checked their phones more often when they were on silent; this association was particularly strong among participants with a strong fear of missing out and a strong need to remain socially connected. However, the study was observational, so it cannot be concluded that turning off the phone specifically caused the additional phone use: people may have chosen silent mode in specific situations, which themselves influenced their behavior. [16]

This explains a familiar situation: a person has turned off the alarms, but now checks the screen every few minutes to make sure they haven't missed anything. In this case, external interrupts are simply replaced by internal ones.

Therefore, when working on tasks that require deep concentration, it's often more beneficial to simultaneously remove unnecessary cues and reduce the visibility of the device itself—for example, by not constantly keeping the phone screen in front of your eyes. This isn't a universal medical rule, but a practical way to eliminate one external stimulus and reduce the likelihood of involuntary checking. A 2016 experiment in which participants kept notifications on and their phone nearby for one week and turned off notifications and removed the device from view for the next showed more subjective symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity in the week with more interruptions. [17]

Do constant notifications cause ADHD?

There is no evidence to suggest that smartphone notifications cause attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. ADHD is a neurodevelopmental disorder with persistent symptoms that begin in childhood, persist across multiple life situations, and significantly impair functioning. The mere fact that a person is increasingly distracted by messages is not enough to make a diagnosis. [18]

The confusion stems in part from a 2016 study titled "Increased Symptoms of Inattention and Hyperactivity." In a two-week experiment, 221 participants from the general student population reported slightly more inattention and hyperactivity during the week they were instructed to leave notifications on and their phone nearby. The researchers specifically clarified that these were symptoms similar to specific manifestations of ADHD, not the onset of the disorder itself. [19]

This is an important distinction. The digital environment is quite capable of making almost anyone more distracted in a given situation. But situational absentmindedness and clinical neurodevelopmental disorder are not the same thing.

If concentration problems persist even without a phone, occur at home, at work, and in other situations, have existed since childhood, or significantly interfere with daily life, ADHD, sleep disorders, anxiety, depression, stress, medical conditions, or other factors may be the cause. In such cases, it is more helpful to assess the problem holistically rather than attribute it solely to notifications. [20]

Are constant notifications ruining your ability to concentrate forever?

Research does not yet allow such a conclusion. Experiments clearly demonstrate that notifications can disrupt the current task and that interruption-heavy environments increase feelings of distraction. The current literature on prolonged digital multitasking is much less clear-cut: results vary across studies, and the links between digital device usage habits and enduring cognitive traits are often weak and dependent on the measurement method. [21]

Therefore, the popular dictum that "smartphones have destroyed our ability to concentrate" is too categorical. A more scientifically sound explanation is that the modern digital environment creates numerous opportunities for distraction, thereby making it difficult to sustain attention on a single task for long periods of time. Removing some of these stimuli makes the environment significantly more conducive to focused work.

This also means that the problem doesn't necessarily have to be dismissed as a lack of willpower. If a person's phone specifically asks them to switch off dozens of times a day, trying to consciously resist the signal each time creates unnecessary strain. Changing the environment may be easier than constantly suppressing the response.

Should I turn off all notifications?

Usually not. The goal isn't to deprive the smartphone of its useful functionality, but to separate urgent alerts from information that can be viewed at a user's convenience.

A 2019 randomized field experiment with 237 participants is illustrative. Researchers varied the method of notification delivery. When messages were aggregated and delivered several times a day at predictable times, participants reported greater attention, productivity, phone control, improved mood, and less stress compared to their usual schedule. When all notifications were turned off completely, these benefits were almost nonexistent, while anxiety and fear of missing out increased. Hourly grouping also yielded significantly fewer benefits. [22]

This doesn't mean everyone needs to check their messages exactly three times a day. The study tested a specific schedule and relied heavily on subjective measures of well-being and productivity. Its broader conclusion is different: predictable windows for incoming information may be more convenient than a constant stream of random interruptions, and complete digital isolation isn't for everyone.

For someone whose job requires immediate response to specific events, it's smarter to maintain a small priority channel—for example, calls from family or messages from a specific work group—and eliminate instant signals from news, shopping, social media, and other sources where a delayed response doesn't have consequences.

What really helps to reduce distractions

An effective strategy usually involves not just adjusting the settings, but reducing unpredictable switching. The more a person controls the moment when they process incoming information, the less the external environment controls their attention.

Change	Why it might help	What to consider
Disable notifications from non-urgent apps	Eliminates some of the external cues that automatically compete for attention	It is not necessary to disable truly urgent alerts
Create no-notice periods for complex work	Reduces the likelihood of switching during periods of high cognitive load	It is better to determine in advance how to contact a person in an emergency situation.
Check email and chats in pre-selected windows	Makes interrupts more predictable	There is no universal optimal interval.
Don't show message preview	Reduces the amount of semantic information that comes into the field of attention	The icon or signal itself can still be distracting.
Keep your phone out of sight during deep work	May reduce both reactions to external cues and habitual self-checks	This is especially useful for those who automatically reach for their phone.
Don't rely solely on silent mode	Eliminates the sound, but does not necessarily require checking the device	If there is a strong fear of missing something, checks may even become more frequent.
Keep a separate channel for truly urgent events	Allows you to reduce the overall flow without feeling completely inaccessible	It's useful to review your "urgent" list periodically.

Experimental data particularly strongly support the idea of reducing immediate notifications and creating a more predictable processing regime. However, the specific regime must be tailored to the individual's work: an on-call surgeon, a parent of a small child, and an author who needs to write for two hours without interruption will all have different levels of acceptable accessibility. [23]

Why group chats fragment attention especially quickly

The problem with group chats isn't that every message is important, but rather the high frequency with which potentially significant signals arrive. One participant asks a question, several people respond, and then reactions and further clarifications follow. For a phone, these represent dozens of individual events, while for the user, the entire conversation may represent a single topic that could easily be read a few minutes later.

With such signals' high frequency, another problem arises: a person begins to anticipate the next message. Then, external notifications cease to be the only source of interruptions—involuntary checks appear. The modern model of digital multitasking takes into account precisely this interaction between the external environment, motivation, habits, and the subjective value of alternative activities. [24]

Therefore, for active work, family, or neighborhood groups, it is often more rational to turn off instant alerts but leave messages available for viewing at a convenient time, rather than trying to deliberately ignore each of dozens of individual banners.

What's the difference between distraction and true multitasking?

A person may subjectively feel like they're simultaneously writing a document and monitoring messages. In reality, when two tasks require meaningful processing, the brain often switches quickly between them rather than fully performing both independently.

Dual-task research shows that parallel processing capabilities are limited, especially when the two activities require equal cognitive resources. Rapid switching is usually accompanied by at least a small loss of time or accuracy. However, the magnitude of the loss varies: two simple and highly automated operations can coexist much more easily than two complex tasks requiring language, working memory, and decision making. [25]

That's why listening to music without lyrics while doing familiar work and texting while writing an analytical piece are not equivalent examples of multitasking. A notification is especially disruptive when it opens a second task that has similar cognitive demands to the first.

Why do we sometimes not notice how distracted we are?

People are good at noticing the receipt of a message, but much less able to appreciate a slight deterioration in the quality of information processing. An error may manifest itself later: a paragraph is read but poorly remembered; a step is missed in a calculation; a detail is overlooked in a conversation; or, after returning to a document, work already completed is repeated.

The 2022 educational lecture experiment actually found a discrepancy between objective and subjective results: the group that received game notifications performed worse on a subsequent test, but their own assessments of learning quality did not reflect this decline. [26]

This is one reason why the principle "I'm used to notifications and they don't bother me" is difficult to use as evidence of a lack of effect. Habit can reduce the annoyance of a signal, but a subjective lack of annoyance doesn't necessarily mean a lack of cognitive cost.

However, it cannot be assumed that every notification necessarily results in a measurable error. Modern research emphasizes the variability of responses: much depends on the person, the task, and the situation. [27]

When notifications are actually useful

Not every interruption is harmful. A meeting reminder, a critical indicator alert, a flight delay message, or a call from a loved one can be significantly more valuable than a few seconds of lost concentration.

Even early research on work fragmentation showed that attitudes toward interruptions depend on context. If an interruption is directly related to the work being done, it is sometimes perceived as helpful; the most disruptive interruptions are those that force an abrupt shift to an entirely different topic. [28]

Therefore, a reasonable goal isn't "zero notifications," but a more precise balance between the urgency of information and the right to interrupt ongoing activity. In a well-tuned digital environment, a small percentage of truly urgent events are immediately alerted, while the rest awaits the user's chosen moment.

Key points from experts

Daniel Smilek, PhD, is a professor of psychology at the University of Waterloo, an attention researcher, and director of the Vision and Attention Lab. His research focuses on sustained attention, mind-wandering, attentional biases, and digital multitasking. In a 2025 review, Smilek and colleagues propose that digital switching should be viewed not simply as a weakness in self-control, but as the result of an interaction between limitations in the cognitive system, motivation, task appraisal, and the environment. The practical implication of this model is that modifying the environment itself—including reducing the number of cues—may be as important as trying to exert greater self-control. [29]

Kostadin Kushlev, PhD, is an associate professor of psychology at Georgetown University and director of the Happy Tech Lab, a digital well-being lab. In his experiment with colleagues, increased phone interruptions were associated with increased subjective inattention and hyperactivity, and subsequent work on grouping notifications showed that predictable delivery can be more beneficial than either a constant stream of notifications or a complete shutdown. His research clearly illustrates the principle that the problem lies not only in the amount of phone use, but also in how the digital environment distributes interruptions over time. [30]

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a notification be distracting even if I haven't even read it?

Yes. Experimental data show that a single call or message alert can impair performance on an attention-demanding task, even without direct interaction with the phone. The proposed mechanism involves automatic attention switching and the emergence of thoughts unrelated to the main task. [31]

What is less distracting - sound or vibration?

A universal advantage cannot be proven. Both audio and tactile signals can attract attention. If a task requires deep concentration, it's more reliable to temporarily disable unnecessary notifications entirely than to simply replace the ringtone with vibration. [32]

Is it better to turn off all notifications completely?

Not necessarily. A field experiment found that completely shutting off notifications could increase anxiety and fear of missing out, while grouping notifications into predictable periods was associated with more favorable subjective outcomes. [33]

How often should I check my messages?

There's no scientifically proven ideal interval. A study showing good results with three messages delivered daily doesn't mean this frequency is optimal for everyone. It's more important to reduce random interruptions and tailor intervals to the actual urgency of the work.

Will Do Not Disturb mode help?

It can help if it truly stops the alerts from appearing during a difficult task. However, a person can compensate for the lack of alerts by checking their phone more frequently, especially if they are afraid of missing a message. [34]

Should I put my phone in another room?

Not everyone. But if a person automatically checks the screen or reacts to every movement and icon, removing the device from view can reduce the number of available stimuli. In a 2016 experiment, muting signals was combined with removing the phone from the immediate field of view, and this combination reduced subjective inattention. [35]

Is it true that 23 minutes of work is lost after notification?

No. The number is often misquoted. In a 2005 study, the average time to return to interrupted activity was 25 minutes 26 seconds, but during this time, people were engaged in other work tasks. This was not a measurement of the time it takes the brain to regain concentration. [36]

Could notifications be the reason for my poor concentration?

These may be a contributing factor. However, if attention difficulties persist across multiple situations, are not phone-dependent, significantly interfere with work or school, or are accompanied by sleep disturbances, severe anxiety, depressed mood, or other symptoms, then notifications alone should not be used as the cause. A diagnosis of ADHD, for example, requires a consistent set of symptoms, present across multiple settings, and beginning in childhood. [37]

Main

Constant notifications disrupt concentration not because each signal "reboots the brain," but because they constantly create competing objects of attention. Sometimes the sound or vibration itself is enough; if a person opens a message, a full-fledged task switch and the need to restore the context of previous work are added. Complex tasks and learning, which require continuous retention and association of information, are especially sensitive to this. [38]

There's no reason to believe that every notification requires a fixed 23 minutes of recovery, that digital signals inevitably cause ADHD, or that they permanently impair concentration. In practice, it's most sensible not to eliminate all notifications, but to reduce the number of random and non-urgent interruptions, giving people more control over when they read incoming information. [39]