Deep Work: Cal Newport's Method for Focus in a Distracted World

The average knowledge worker switches tasks every three minutes. Check your email. Glance at your phone. Respond to a Slack message. Jump between browser tabs. We've built work environments that treat human attention as infinitely divisible—but our brains didn't evolve for this kind of cognitive chaos.

Cal Newport, a Georgetown computer science professor, named this problem when he coined the term "Deep Work" in his 2016 book. He defined it as professional activities performed in a state of distraction-free concentration that push your cognitive capabilities to their limit. These efforts create new value, improve your skill, and are hard to replicate.

The concept resonated because it articulated something many people felt but couldn't quite name: that our best work happens when we can focus completely, yet our modern workplaces seem designed to prevent exactly that. Newport's central argument is provocative—Deep Work is becoming simultaneously rarer and more valuable. As distraction becomes the norm, the few who cultivate deep focus gain an enormous competitive advantage.

But is Deep Work just productivity philosophy, or does it rest on solid science? Decades of research in neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and workplace productivity provide compelling answers. The evidence shows that distractions carry real cognitive costs, that attention can be trained like a muscle, and that focused effort produces dramatically better outcomes than fragmented work. It also reveals important limitations and shows that Deep Work isn't equally accessible to everyone.

Let's examine what the research actually says.

The Science of Sustained Attention

Your brain's ability to maintain focus isn't mystical—it operates through specific neural networks that scientists have mapped in detail. When researchers analyzed 67 neuroimaging studies, they identified what they call a "vigilant attention network" spanning 14 distinct brain regions. These areas work together to keep you focused on what matters while filtering out distractions.

The prefrontal cortex acts as your brain's executive control center. Think of it as a spotlight operator, shining attention where you need it while dimming everything else. When you concentrate on solving a complex problem, your prefrontal cortex actively suppresses competing neural activity. It's working hard to keep irrelevant thoughts and stimuli from hijacking your focus.

This involves two major attention systems. The dorsal attention network handles voluntary, top-down control—you consciously direct your attention where you choose. The ventral attention network acts as a circuit breaker, detecting unexpected but potentially important stimuli that might need your attention. Deep Work essentially requires strengthening the dorsal system's ability to maintain focus while managing when the ventral system interrupts.

Here's what makes sustained attention challenging: your brain's default state is actually mind-wandering. Research on attention control reveals that the brain has a continuous bias toward internally-generated thoughts. Maintaining external focus on a task requires active executive control to override this natural tendency. Your attention doesn't simply decline over time—rather, your brain keeps trying to return to its preferred wandering state.

This explains why focused work feels effortful. Your brain isn't failing when it wanders during a difficult task. It's doing what brains naturally do. Deep Work practices essentially train the executive control systems to more effectively override this default mode.

The encouraging news? Sustained attention responds to training. Studies on focused attention meditation found that even five days of practice produced significant improvements in executive attention. The attention networks in your brain adapt to what you regularly demand of them, just like muscles adapt to exercise.

The Hidden Cost of Every Interruption

The strongest scientific support for Deep Work comes from research on task switching and attention residue. Psychologist Sophie Leroy discovered something important when she studied what happens to our minds when we switch between tasks. She found that when we move from one activity to another, part of our attention remains "stuck" on the previous task instead of fully transferring to the new one. She called this phenomenon attention residue.

In controlled experiments, Leroy gave participants an initial task, then interrupted them to work on something else. Those who anticipated time pressure on the first task—meaning they felt rushed or that something remained undone—performed significantly worse on the second task. Their minds kept drifting back to what they'd left behind. They processed information less carefully, missed errors more often, and when asked to make decisions, were less likely to identify the optimal solution.

The effect proved especially strong when tasks were left incomplete or cognitively demanding. Your brain doesn't like loose ends. It keeps allocating resources to the unfinished task, draining capacity from whatever you're trying to do now.

Gloria Mark, a researcher at UC Irvine, quantified just how expensive these interruptions are. Her workplace studies produced a finding that became famous in productivity circles: after an interruption, it takes an average of 23 minutes and 15 seconds to fully regain deep focus. Think about what that means. A single email notification doesn't just cost you the 30 seconds to read and respond—it potentially costs you half your working hour.

Mark's research shadowing office workers revealed that the average time spent on any single task before switching was just three minutes and five seconds. People cycled through activities at a dizzying pace, rarely sustaining focus long enough to achieve the concentrated thinking that complex work requires.

The worst part? Interrupted workers compensate by working faster—but at significant psychological cost. Mark found that stress ratings jumped from 6.92 to 9.46 on a 20-point scale when workers experienced interruptions. And critically, the content of the interruption didn't matter. Whether the interruption related to the current task or came completely out of left field, it proved equally disruptive. Any break in concentration carries a cost.

Your Smartphone Is Draining Your Brain—Even When It's Off

Perhaps the most striking modern research on distraction involves our phones. A 2017 study published in the Journal of the Association for Consumer Research demonstrated something remarkable: the mere presence of a smartphone—even face-down, silenced, and completely ignored—reduces available cognitive capacity.

The researchers ran several experiments with hundreds of participants. In one version, some people left their phones in another room, others put them in their pocket or bag, and a third group placed them on the desk face-down. Then everyone completed tests measuring working memory and fluid intelligence—basically, how well they could think.

The results were clear. Those who left their phones in another room performed significantly better than those who had phones on their desks. The pocket/bag group fell in between. Most remarkably, this "brain drain" effect occurred even when participants successfully avoided looking at their phones throughout the entire test. The phones exerted their influence "without interrupting sustained attention or conscious thoughts about the phone."

The effect proved strongest among those most dependent on their smartphones. People who described themselves as highly phone-dependent showed the largest cognitive decrements from phone presence. It's as if part of their brain remained dedicated to the task of NOT checking the phone—capacity that could have been used for actual thinking.

Related research found that smartphone notifications significantly decreased performance on attention tasks even when participants didn't view the notification. The buzz or ring prompted task-irrelevant thoughts that manifested in measurably poorer performance. Your phone doesn't need to successfully distract you to hurt your thinking. The attempt alone is enough.

Why Your Working Memory Is the Bottleneck

To understand why distraction costs so much, you need to understand your brain's most severe limitation: working memory. This is the cognitive workspace where you hold and manipulate information you're currently thinking about. It's where understanding happens, where problems get solved, where new ideas form.

The problem? Working memory is shockingly limited. While psychologist George Miller's classic 1956 paper suggested we can hold 7±2 items in working memory, more recent research indicates the true capacity is closer to three to five chunks of information, retained for roughly 20 seconds maximum. This is the cognitive bottleneck through which all learning and complex thinking must pass.

Cognitive load theory, developed by educational psychologist John Sweller in the late 1980s, explains the implications. Sweller identified three types of mental load that compete for your limited working memory:

Intrinsic load comes from the inherent difficulty of the material itself. Learning calculus carries higher intrinsic load than learning to alphabetize. This load is relatively fixed—you can't make hard things easy just by changing how you approach them.

Extraneous load comes from everything that drains mental resources without contributing to learning or progress. Open office noise. Visual clutter. Interruptions. Poorly designed processes. Confusing interfaces. This is wasted cognitive capacity.

Germane load represents productive mental effort—the work of building understanding, making connections, developing skill. This is the load you want to maximize.

Here's the key insight: these three types of load are additive. When extraneous load runs high—from a noisy environment, constant notifications, or frequent task switching—less capacity remains for germane load. You're spending precious working memory on managing distractions instead of actually thinking.

Deep Work environments systematically eliminate extraneous cognitive load. They maximize the mental resources available for the work that matters. Research on open office noise demonstrates this principle clearly. A study by Evans and Johnson exposed participants to three hours of simulated open-office noise, then measured their stress hormones and behavior. The noise elevated stress markers and produced motivational deficits—critically, even while participants reported no increase in perceived stress. Your physiology registers the cognitive cost of noisy environments whether you consciously notice or not.

More recent workplace research found that open-office noise increased negative mood by 25% and elevated physiological stress markers by 34%. The research showed that ambient noise increased urgent, reactive processing while decreasing analytical processing—precisely the opposite of what complex knowledge work requires.

The Connection to Flow and Deliberate Practice

Deep Work doesn't exist in isolation. Newport built his framework on two well-established research traditions: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's concept of "flow" and Anders Ericsson's work on deliberate practice.

Csikszentmihalyi spent decades studying optimal experience—moments when people feel most alive, engaged, and fulfilled. He called this state "flow," defining it as complete immersion in an activity with energized focus, full involvement, and genuine enjoyment. His research identified three essential conditions for entering flow: clear goals about what you're trying to accomplish, immediate feedback on whether you're making progress, and a challenge-skill balance where the task's difficulty matches your abilities.

When these conditions align, something remarkable happens. People lose self-consciousness and their sense of time distorts. Hours feel like minutes. The work stops feeling like work. Most importantly, research confirms that flow states correlate with improved performance across domains including sports, gaming, education, and creative work.

The connection to Deep Work is direct. Newport's practices—setting clear goals for each session, structuring work to provide feedback, choosing challenges that stretch but don't overwhelm—systematically create the conditions Csikszentmihalyi identified. Deep Work sessions are essentially designed to maximize time spent in flow states.

Ericsson's research on expert performance provides the second pillar. His landmark study with violinists at the Berlin Music Academy found that elite performers accumulated significantly more hours of focused, effortful practice than less accomplished peers. But this wasn't just practice—it was what Ericsson called deliberate practice: highly focused work on specific weaknesses with immediate feedback and repetition.

Critically, Ericsson discovered important limits. Elite musicians engaged in deliberate practice for only about one hour without breaks and four to five hours maximum daily. Beginners showed even tighter constraints—just 15 to 20 minutes of full concentration before exhaustion. Recovery proved essential. Push beyond these limits and returns diminish rapidly.

This aligns perfectly with Newport's recommendation that most people can sustain about four hours of true deep work daily. The limit isn't arbitrary—it reflects genuine cognitive constraints. As Ericsson noted, "Diffused attention is almost antithetical to the focused attention required by deliberate practice."

The neurological mechanism underlying both skill development and Deep Work involves myelin formation. When you focus intensely and repeatedly on a specific skill, you force the relevant neural circuit to fire in isolation. This triggers support cells called oligodendrocytes to wrap those circuits in myelin, an insulating sheath that makes the signals travel faster and stronger. Focused, repetitive engagement builds the neural infrastructure for expertise.

Newport's Four Rules for Cultivating Deep Work

Newport structures his practical guidance around four rules, each addressing different aspects of the challenge.

Work Deeply Through Ritual and Structure

Willpower functions like a muscle—it fatigues with use and requires recovery. This means you can't rely on willpower alone to maintain focus. Newport recommends building routines and rituals that minimize the decisions needed to enter deep work. These might include choosing a specific location where you work and for how long, establishing explicit rules about technology use during sessions, and preparing everything you'll need in advance.

The idea is to make Deep Work the path of least resistance. When you eliminate decisions about whether to start, where to work, and what rules to follow, you save your willpower for the actual cognitive effort required by the work itself.

Newport also adapts what he calls the "4 Disciplines of Execution" from business consulting: focus on what's wildly important rather than spreading effort across too many goals, track lead measures like hours of deep work rather than just outputs, keep a visible scoreboard that shows your progress, and create accountability through regular reviews.

One specific ritual Newport emphasizes is the shutdown routine. At the end of each workday, review your tasks, capture any loose threads or ideas, confirm that everything important is accounted for, and then explicitly end your consideration of work. The ritual might conclude with a specific phrase like "shutdown complete." This allows your mind to fully disengage and recover, which proves essential for sustaining deep work over time.

Embrace Boredom to Train Attention

Modern life conditions us to seek constant stimulation. Feel a moment of boredom? Check your phone. Waiting in line? Browse social media. This pattern trains your brain to expect and demand constant novelty. It makes sustained focus difficult because your attention system has adapted to rapid switching.

Newport recommends deliberately training your ability to resist distraction. One approach is to schedule internet use rather than taking breaks from distraction. Instead of being online by default and occasionally disconnecting, make offline your default state and schedule specific times to go online.

He also suggests "productive meditation"—using physical activity like walking, jogging, or showering to work on a single professional problem. When your mind wanders to other topics, gently return it to the problem. This practice strengthens attention control while making productive use of time that might otherwise be wasted.

The principle is simple: your attention system adapts to what you regularly demand of it. Constant stimulation trains distractibility. Tolerating boredom and resisting immediate gratification trains the capacity for sustained concentration.

Apply the Craftsman Approach to Tools

We tend to adopt any tool that offers potential benefits without carefully considering costs. A new app might help collaboration but fragment your attention with notifications. Social media might provide networking value but consume hours of potential deep work time.

Newport recommends identifying the core factors that determine success in your professional and personal life, then adopting tools only if their positive impacts substantially outweigh negatives. This isn't about avoiding all technology—it's about being intentional rather than reflexive.

A practical test is the 30-day elimination experiment. Pick a tool you're unsure about and completely stop using it for 30 days. Then ask two questions: Would the last 30 days have been notably better if I'd used this tool? Did people care that I wasn't using it? If both answers are no, eliminate the tool permanently.

Drain the Shallows Through Time Management

Shallow work—logistical tasks like email, scheduling, and administrative duties—expands to fill available time if you let it. Newport recommends aggressive time management to contain these activities and protect space for depth.

One technique is time blocking: schedule every minute of your working day rather than keeping an open calendar and reacting to whatever comes up. This doesn't mean rigidly adhering to a plan—you can and should revise blocks as the day unfolds. The value comes from intentionality rather than flexibility.

Newport also suggests quantifying task depth by asking "How long would it take a smart recent college graduate with no specialized training to complete this task?" If the answer is "not long," it's shallow work that should be minimized, batched, or eliminated.

Consider establishing a shallow work budget—deciding in advance that no more than 30-50% of your time will go to shallow activities. This forces ruthless prioritization and prevents the insidious drift toward constant reactivity.

Four Philosophies for Scheduling Deep Work

Not everyone can implement Deep Work identically. Your job, responsibilities, and personality all constrain what's possible. Newport identifies four scheduling philosophies suited to different circumstances.

The Monastic Philosophy eliminates virtually all shallow obligations. Computer scientist Donald Knuth famously has no email address. Novelist Neal Stephenson describes himself as a "bad correspondent" who doesn't attend conferences or respond to most communications. This approach works for those whose success depends on doing one thing exceptionally well, but proves unrealistic for most knowledge workers who need some degree of connectivity and collaboration.

The Bimodal Philosophy divides time into clearly defined stretches dedicated to deep work while leaving other periods open for everything else. Psychologist Carl Jung retreated to his tower in Bollingen for extended writing periods while maintaining an active schedule of teaching and clinical work in Zurich. Wharton professor Adam Grant stacks all his teaching into one semester and dedicates the other to uninterrupted research blocks with closed-door policies and email auto-responders. This works well for people with substantial control over their schedules who can protect large blocks of time.

The Rhythmic Philosophy creates a consistent daily habit—deep work at the same time every day. Comedian Jerry Seinfeld reportedly used what became known as the "chain method": write a joke every day, mark the calendar, and don't break the chain. This approach removes decision-making friction and builds automatic routines. Newport considers this most practical for the average knowledge worker with a fairly predictable schedule. The regular rhythm makes deep work a habit rather than something that requires constant negotiation.

The Journalistic Philosophy fits deep work into available windows throughout irregular days, switching into focus mode whenever opportunity arises. Biographer Walter Isaacson could enjoy family time, then disappear upstairs for 20 minutes of concentrated writing before returning. This approach requires substantial practice and isn't recommended for beginners. The ability to rapidly switch from shallow to deep mode doesn't come naturally—it develops only after extensive experience with sustained focus.

Practical Strategies That Actually Work

Successfully implementing Deep Work requires attention to environment, scheduling, and tracking.

Your physical setup matters more than you might think. An ergonomic chair prevents physical discomfort from breaking concentration. Proper lighting reduces eye strain during extended sessions. Some people benefit from a standing desk option that allows position changes without ending the work session. The key is removing physical friction that might interrupt focus.

Digital hygiene proves equally important. App blockers like Freedom or Cold Turkey can enforce your intention to stay offline during deep work sessions. Putting your phone in another room eliminates the brain drain effect research documented. Disabling all notifications system-wide means you won't face constant decisions about whether to check incoming messages. These are environmental modifications that make deep work easier rather than harder.

Acoustic control can make or break deep work. If possible, work in a quiet space. When that's not available, noise-canceling headphones provide remarkable isolation. Interestingly, research suggests that white noise around 45 decibels improves cognitive performance, while higher levels increase stress. Complete silence isn't necessary—just absence of unpredictable, attention-grabbing sounds.

Even your visual environment matters. Research found that children in decorated classrooms were less likely to stay focused and scored lower than those in undecorated rooms. Visual complexity consumes attention resources. A simple, uncluttered workspace helps your brain stay on task.

For scheduling, the Rhythmic Philosophy works best for most people. Schedule 90-minute deep work blocks at consistent times, ideally during your peak cognitive hours—morning for most people, though individual variation exists. If 90 minutes feels overwhelming initially, start with 30-minute blocks. The habit matters more than the duration when you're beginning.

Consider batching shallow work into two defined daily windows rather than responding to email and messages continuously throughout the day. Many people find checking email twice daily—perhaps mid-morning and mid-afternoon—sufficient for most roles. Making these windows visible on your calendar signals to colleagues when you're available versus when you're focusing.

Tracking provides crucial feedback. Keep a simple tally of daily deep work hours. Newport recommends a physical scoreboard visible at your desk. Weekly, review patterns: How many hours of deep work did you achieve? What interrupted you most often? What conditions produced your best focus?

Track the lead measure—hours of focused work—rather than just outputs. You can't always control whether a project succeeds, but you can control whether you dedicate focused time to it. Over time, quality outputs follow quality inputs.

One research-backed intervention specifically addresses task switching. Sophie Leroy found that briefly writing down where you are on a task, what steps remain, and what you plan to do next—what she called a "Ready-to-Resume Plan"—takes less than a minute but significantly reduces attention residue when you return later. This simple practice helps your brain let go of the current task more completely.

What the Research Actually Shows—And What It Doesn't

The scientific foundation for Deep Work's core claims is solid. Research consistently demonstrates that task switching imposes substantial cognitive costs, that attention residue degrades performance after task switches, that smartphone presence reduces available cognitive capacity, and that environmental noise and interruptions impair cognitive function. Studies also confirm that sustained attention can be trained through practice, that working memory limitations constrain complex thinking, and that focused effort produces better outcomes than fragmented work.

The productivity multipliers Newport describes rest on shakier ground. Claims of five-fold improvements during flow states often come from self-report data that should be interpreted cautiously. The specific mechanisms by which Deep Work produces better outcomes—and how much improvement individuals can expect—remain less precisely quantified than the distraction costs.

The four-hour daily limit has strong empirical support from deliberate practice research, but individual variation is substantial. Some people may sustain longer periods; others find their cognitive reserves depleted sooner. Experience level matters too—beginners can't sustain as much deep work as experts who've spent years training their focus.

Several important questions remain inadequately researched. Optimal deep work duration varies by individual, task type, and experience level, but no universal formula exists. Whether building deep work capacity in one domain improves focus in others—what researchers call transfer effects—remains unclear. Long-term sustainability of intense deep work schedules hasn't been studied systematically. How teams can protect individual focus time while maintaining necessary coordination lacks clear research guidance.

The Privilege Problem and Other Legitimate Criticisms

Deep Work has attracted thoughtful criticism worth acknowledging honestly.

The framework assumes significant control over your schedule and environment—autonomy many workers lack. Newport's examples skew heavily toward academics, writers, and senior professionals. As productivity consultant Tiago Forte observes, the advice works well for "a small group of writers, artists, and academics whose work is clearly defined, self-contained, and structured linearly."

Workers without job security, dedicated workspace, or schedule flexibility face real barriers to implementation. A retail worker can't create uninterrupted blocks. A customer service representative must remain responsive. An administrative assistant serves others' schedules, not their own. The ability to protect extended focus time is itself a form of privilege not equally distributed across roles and organizations.

Critics have noted that nearly all of Newport's successful deep workers are white men, while female examples often illustrate what not to do. The book doesn't adequately address how caregiving responsibilities—which disproportionately fall on women—constrain Deep Work opportunities. A parent managing childcare alongside work faces interruptions that no ritual or scheduling philosophy can eliminate.

The collaboration tension creates another challenge. Research from workplace design firm Gensler found that individual focus is the most significant factor in workplace effectiveness, yet it's also the least supported workplace activity in modern offices. But many jobs genuinely require collaboration and responsiveness. Newport himself acknowledges that executives and CEOs may need to remain accessible as "hard-to-automate decision engines" requiring constant information flow.

Some critics argue that the "weak ties" Newport dismisses on social media often provide more valuable opportunities than strong ties, and that interdisciplinary innovation requires broad awareness rather than narrow depth. Not all valuable knowledge work follows the deep work model.

The framework may also inadvertently contribute to overwork culture. The focus on maximizing productive output, even when more humane than constant shallow busyness, still centers work as the primary source of meaning and achievement. For people already struggling with work-life balance, Deep Work might become another source of pressure rather than liberation.

Who Benefits Most—And Who Might Not

Deep Work practices work best for people whose jobs involve learning hard things quickly or producing complex creative or analytical work, and who have meaningful control over their schedules. Software developers, writers, researchers, designers, engineers, and strategic analysts stand to benefit substantially. The work itself rewards sustained concentration, and these roles often allow some schedule autonomy.

The approach works less well for roles requiring constant responsiveness. Customer service representatives, salespeople, administrative support staff, and healthcare workers often can't create protected focus time without failing core job responsibilities. For these workers, the value might come more from Newport's broader points about minimizing unnecessary distractions and batching similar tasks than from implementing extended deep work blocks.

Early-career workers building relationships face a different challenge. Being known as available and responsive often matters for career development in ways that Deep Work explicitly trades off against. Declining meetings and limiting email responsiveness might be acceptable for senior people with established reputations but career-limiting for those still proving themselves.

People with significant caregiving responsibilities—whether for children, aging parents, or other family members—may lack the environmental control Deep Work requires. Interruptions aren't a choice when a toddler needs attention or an elderly parent requires care. The framework needs substantial adaptation for people balancing work with these responsibilities.

Remote workers often find Deep Work easier to implement. They control their environment, face fewer ambient office interruptions, and can more easily create the quiet, focused conditions deep work requires. Research from Harvard Business Review found that knowledge workers spent 12% less time in large meetings when working remotely, freeing capacity for focused work.

A Path Forward Without Perfectionism

The research supporting Deep Work's core principles is substantial. Distractions carry real cognitive costs. Attention can be trained. Focused effort produces better outcomes than fragmented work. Newport has synthesized decades of cognitive science into genuinely actionable practices.

But implementation requires honest assessment of your circumstances. Not everyone has equal access to quiet environments, schedule autonomy, or jobs that reward individual depth over collaborative responsiveness. The framework needs thoughtful adaptation, not blind application.

Start where you can. Even modest increases in focused time—30 uninterrupted minutes daily—compound over months into substantial gains. Track your deep work hours without judgment. Experiment with scheduling philosophies to find what fits your actual life. Notice which environments support your concentration. Build rituals that reduce the friction of entering focused states.

Most importantly, recognize that deep focus isn't a personality trait you either possess or lack. It's a skill developed through deliberate practice. The attention networks in your brain respond to training. Every period of genuine concentration strengthens the neural circuits supporting it. The capacity builds gradually, not instantaneously.

The path forward isn't about achieving perfect, distraction-free focus for eight hours daily. It's about protecting whatever focused time your circumstances allow, then gradually expanding it as you develop the skill. It's about understanding the cognitive costs of distraction clearly enough to make informed tradeoffs. It's about recognizing when you're spending mental resources managing distractions rather than thinking.

In an economy increasingly saturated with distraction, the capacity for sustained focus may be among the most valuable things you can develop. Not because it makes you a better worker (though it likely does), but because it allows you to do the kind of thinking that matters—the complex, creative, meaningful work that shallow busyness prevents.

Deep Work isn't a complete solution to modern work's challenges. It won't resolve toxic workplace cultures, unreasonable demands, or systemic inequities. But for those who can implement even parts of it, the research suggests it offers genuine value. Your attention is limited. How you use it shapes what you can accomplish and what kind of thinking you can do. That's worth taking seriously.

Key Research Sources

Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87-114.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135-168.
Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406.
Evans, G.W., & Johnson, D. (2000). Stress and open-office noise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 779-783.
Fortenbaugh, F.C., DeGutis, J., & Esterman, M. (2017). Recent theoretical, neural, and clinical advances in sustained attention research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1396(1), 70-91.
Langner, R., & Eickhoff, S.B. (2013). Sustaining attention to simple tasks: A meta-analytic review of the neural mechanisms of vigilant attention. Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), 870-900.
Leroy, S. (2009). Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when switching between work tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 168-181.
Mark, G., Gudith, D., & Klocke, U. (2008). The cost of interrupted work: More speed and stress. Proceedings of CHI 2008, 107-110.
Miller, E.K., & Cohen, J.D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167-202.
Rubinstein, J.S., Meyer, D.E., & Evans, J.E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763-797.
Stothart, C., Mitchum, A., & Yehnert, C. (2015). The attentional cost of receiving a cell phone notification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(4), 893-897.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
Ward, A.F., Duke, K., Gneezy, A., & Bos, M.W. (2017). Brain drain: The mere presence of one's own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 140-154.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. Handbook of Positive Psychology, 89-105.
Thomson, D.R., Besner, D., & Smilek, D. (2015). A resource-control account of sustained attention. Australian Journal of Psychology, 67(1), 59-72.
Fisher, A.V., Godwin, K.E., & Seltman, H. (2014). Visual environment, attention allocation, and learning in young children. Psychological Science, 25(7), 1362-1370.
Kotabe, H.P., & Hofmann, W. (2015). On integrating the components of self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(5), 618-638.