Running Head: IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION

IDENTIFYING DETRIMENTAL DISTRACTIONS TO AN AREA OF CONCENTRATION

by

Kendall Hughes and Marlee Bratsch

A Senior Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for Graduation

Central Magnet School

May 2018
IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the many people who have helped us in the completion of our thesis project.

Thank you to Mrs. Harrison and Dr. Thomas who helped guide us through this process with their
wisdom, advice, and counsel.

Thank you to Mr. Cowart who allowed us to use his Emotiv EEG Device at our leisure.

Thank you to Dr. Thomas who served as our mentor and provided valuable insight to help us
kickstart this thesis. We wish to have had more time with you and your vast array of knowledge.

Thank you to our parents who helped us cope with the stress this thesis brought upon us.

Thank you to all the participants who took part in our study, and to the extras that helped in the
experimentation process. Our thesis would not have been possible without you.

And finally, thank you to Mrs. Dodd, Mrs.Hogue, Dr. Guthrie for sharing the Barbie Room with
us during our control and experimental trials. Your patience and kindness to us was
unconditional.
 IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………….……………...ii
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………….……………..iv

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………….………...1-5
Research Question………………………………………………….………...1

Research Purpose………………………………………………….…….…...1
Background Information…………………………….……………………....1-5

Mental Discipline………...……………………….………...……………….2
Distraction Cost.....................................................................................2-3

Beta Waves………………………………………….…...……………...…….3
Electroencephalography………………………….………..………………..3-4
Jigsaw Puzzles………………………………….………………..…………...4-5

Hypothesis.........................................................................................................5
METHODOLOGY…………………………………….…………………...………...6-10

Materials……………………………………….………………..…………….6-7
Participants……………………………………….………………..………….7-8

Procedure……………………………………….…………………..………....8-10
RESULTS……………………………………………………………………………..11-16

Distraction Level..............................................................................................13-14
DISCUSSION...............................................................................................................17-21

CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................22
REFERENCES……………………………………………...………....……………..23-24

APPENDIX………………………………………………………...………………....25-28
 IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION iv

ABSTRACT

Our research is aimed at helping students and workers who struggle getting efficient work

done because of common distractions. The purpose of our study is to identify the most

distracting interruption to a focused train of thought. In order to draw meaningful results from

our research we tested multiple distractions that might be common in a work setting while

observing participants’ focus level. An Emotiv EEG headband was used to observe brain waves

from a randomized group of participants. It was expected that the technological ringer would be

the most harmful, however we found that human presence was the most harmful distraction. It

was also concluded that the distractions human presence and talking, as well as the loud noise

were not true distractions (did not have a significant effect on participants’ focus). These results

could be consequence from multiple limitations and further testing should be done in order to

solidify our findings.

IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
1

INTRODUCTION

Research Question

What is the most harmful distraction to a focused mental state of study determined by the

analysis of focus levels? For the purposes of this experiment, harmful means a loss of

concentration or focus when completing a task.

Research Purpose

Our purpose is to improve efficiency among individuals in a focused cognitive state by

observing how interruptions affect work​ in order to identify the most harmful distractions. ​We

intend to challenge ourselves by looking deeper into the brain activity of a subject to determine

which diversions are most harmful to a valuable atmosphere of concentration. In today’s society,

losing focus is a challenge that people of all ages face. ​By finding an environment for optimal

success and learning how to limit these distractions, anyone can overcome these challenges. The

distractions we intend to test are: human presence, technological ringer, external conversation,

and a loud noise outside the testing room. While these distractions may affect everyone

differently, everyone should be aware of the most harmful among these, thus our analysis of

brain waves will help make this distraction evident.

Background Information

Productivity, the ability to produce desired results while attempting to complete a given

task, plays an important role in today’s society.​ In order to be productive, a large level of focus

must be maintained. This focus often requires the power of self control. Those with high levels

of self control tend to be more successful and live a healthier, better lifestyle ​(Arseneaultb et al.,
IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
3

participant. ​We wish to identify the distraction with the highest disruption cost among these

external distractions by observing the brain’s activity​.

Beta Waves

There are many types of electrical activity in our brain. Neural firing, often considered to

be electric waves, regulates brain activity. Seen as electrochemical impulses, these electric waves

are classified according to their Hertz level. ​The four types of brain waves are beta, alpha, theta,

and delta. Due to the nature of our study, the wave involved while consciously alert and attentive

is the desired wave to measure. Beta waves fulfill this criteria according to a study that reported,

“…𝜷 activity was greater when the subjects were attentive” (Liu, Chiang, & Chu, 2013). Beta

waves have a frequency between 14 and 30 Hz.

Electroencephalography

In this study an EEG machine will be required to conduct wave frequency analysis of the

Beta waves. The Institute of Measurement Science defines electroencephalography (EEG) as “a

medical imaging device that reads electrical activity generated by brain structures” (Teplan).

EEG has been conducted by placing electrodes on a subject’s scalp in very specific spots using

adhesive. These electrodes record the electrical signals in your brain (mainly from the cerebral

cortex) and compute it either into a computer or on paper in the form of wave frequencies. The

various electrodes read brain waves from different lobes in the brain. It is typical that a

researcher will focus on collecting data from only one area with a verified set of electrodes used

during the EEG. In our study we will be looking at the wave data collected from the frontal lobe.

The frontal lobe is where decision making abilities are performed and is considered the

emotional control center of the brain. It also manages other important cognitive processes such
IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
2

2011)​. Thus, it is more advantageous to be focused. Being focused takes a conscious effort that is

a result from mental discipline.

Mental Discipline

Becoming mentally disciplined is often challenged by distractions presented in a work

environment. Whether it be from the people, the environmental conditions, or the noise level in a

centralized situation, distractors are always present. One growing distraction in today's society is

the presence of​ ​technology- specifically cell phones. In a study conducted by Barney McCoy at

the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, studies found that on average, students check their phones

in class more than 11 times a day (Reed). "This suggests a need for students to learn more

effective self-control techniques to keep focused on the learning at hand in a classroom settings,"

says ​McCoy.

​Many of the daily hindrances we, as people, face could be easily controlled if we were

aware of their deleterious effects to normal work day performance. The distractions mentioned

above as well as the distractions used in our study all have a common thread,​ ​though. These

diversions are external. They result from a force outside of yourself, therefore they are avoidable.

Disruption Cost

We are interested in measuring the disruption cost of differing interruptions. A disruption

cost is the result of anything that takes away from productivity​; this can either be a beneficial or

hurtful interruption as found by researchers from the University of California Irvine (Mark,

Gudith, & Klocke, n.d.). ​The disruption cost we’re evaluating is the focus that is lost when a

distraction is implemented​; we are not measuring the amount of puzzle pieces put together by the
IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
4

as attention, movement, memory and problem solving.​ “Because a person’s emotions, mental

state, and attentiveness are governed by various parts of the brain in the forehead region,

observing the EEG signals from this area is a viable method for determining whether students are

attentive” (Liu et al., 2013).

Although the EEG is the best machinery to use when collecting data from brain waves,

there are limitations to its use.​ EEG machines are expensive pieces of equipment and using them

once can cost a patient upwards of seven hundred dollars. In order to make our study possible,

we won’t be able to use a real EEG machine, so we decided to invest in an EEG headset. These

are often used in meditation practice, but are also able to record raw brain activity. The most

affordable and adaptable EEG headset, we found, is the Emotiv Insight 5-Channel Wireless EEG

Headset.​ According to the company's website, the Emotiv has “9 axis motion sensors for

precision measurement of head position and movement”, easy access to raw data, and is

bluetooth enabled ​("EMOTIV Insight Brainwear® 5 Channel Wireless EEG Headset," n.d.)​. The

sensors allow for the participant to freely move about while solving the puzzle without disrupting

the data collection process, which wouldn't be possible when using a traditional EEG. The

bluetooth allowed us to confidently leave the room while the data is being collected without

having to monitor the situation. With these three most appealing features, and it’s lightweight,

the Emotiv Insight Headset, will help to collect meaningful data. The EEG headset will be our

data collecting mechanism.

Jigsaw Puzzles

In order to create an effective work like environment, we decided that a puzzle would be

the best imitator of a “workplace setting” task to complete while wearing the EEG headband​. A
IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
5

puzzle is often thought of as a child’s item, but in recent years puzzle solving has been found to

offer amazing mental health benefits (Buttonwood, 2014). Due to this finding, our study will

incorporate jigsaw puzzles as the primary task because of their tendency to act as a moderate

cognitive stimulant. If we were to use a crossword or Sudoku puzzle, then it would be easier for

the subject to tone out the implemented distractions because of the high levels of mental demand

required to complete them. ​By using the jigsaw puzzle, there is a level of focus required, but it

also allows the subjects’ brain to be susceptible to distractions​. If the difficulty of the puzzle is

causing extreme stress on the brain, then the data indicated at the time of each distraction won’t

be as accurate.

The ability to produce efficiently in society, an important asset, is constantly challenged

by the presence of distractions. ​Through the use of EEG technology and the current knowledge

of beta waves, this study aims to serve as a platform for increased productivity and to assist in

defining a successful personal learning environment.

Hypothesis

The technological distraction will be most harmful to a concentrated learning

environment.
IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
6

METHODOLOGY

Materials

We will be using the Emotiv Insight 5 Channel Mobile EEG along with the MyEmotive

application. This allows us to get very similar results to a real EEG at a much lower cost. The

MyEmotiv app will be used to measure brain waves, shown to us in six comparison levels:

interest, engagement, excitement, relaxation, stress, and focus. We will examine the comparison

level “focus”, due to it being a reading of the beta waves.

Our study requires two jigsaw puzzles of five-hundred pieces each. These jigsaw puzzles

will be of the same difficulty, but will have different pictures. Having different pictures will

ensure that the participant doesn’t remember how to complete the jigsaw puzzle in their second

run through. The large jigsaw size (five-hundred pieces) is meant to confirm that the subject will

not be able to finish the puzzle before testing is complete.

In order to eliminate other variables the participant will be in a empty, quiet room that can

be manipulated to meet the standards of each distraction. In the room there will be a table and

chair for the participant to sit at. There will also be a table to hold some of the distractions.

Multiple distractions will be used throughout the study. The first distraction will require an

extra and a bottle of contact solution. The next distraction requires an Apple iPhone. This will be

placed in the room, and we will call it so that the ringer will go off. The call will have the default

sound that many people easily recognize. This device must be facing up, and turned on high

volume. The next distraction is human presence and talking; two extras will be needed to retrieve

a stack of papers. These papers will be pre-set before the trial begins. For the last distraction, we

will also use a small sized textbook that will be dropped outside the door. In order to secure that
IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
7

each distraction is implemented at the same time for each participant a stopwatch will be used.

This stopwatch is for the purpose of lining up the distractions and the MyEmotiv signals. The

timing will not be based on the participants completion of the puzzle.

The final materials needed are a letter to the participants and a parent permission form. The

purpose of this letter is to give participants brief details about the study without disclosing that

the distractions implemented are involved in the study and are meant to hinder their ability to

solve the puzzle. The parent permission form is a precaution taken because we will be placing a

device on their head. The parent will receive the same information that is in the student letter, but

asks for their consent for their child to participate in this experiment. All parent permission forms

will be signed and submitted before any trials are run on a student.

Participants

Sixteen subjects will be needed for our study-four subjects will be randomly chosen from

each grade level in order to give equal representation of a high school student body. Out of the

four from each grade level, two should be boys and two will be girls. This will provide an equal

ratio of male to female participants that represent a diverse student body. Age, appearance, race,

IQ, and any other social status of the subjects does not matter. The only requirements of the

subject is that they must be a high​-​school student and must be enrolled in classes according to his

or her appropriate grade level (ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth). For convenience purposes, the

student participants in our study will all be from Central Magnet School. We understand this may

have an effect on the results, because Central students are all educated within the same

community. Extra people (extras) will be included in our study, but they will be given all
IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
8

information regarding the study and its purpose. Three extras will be needed. They will help us

implement the distractions and are not eligible to be subjects in in the study.

Procedure

Each participant will be apart of both the control group and the experimental group. The

control group is each subject’s first visit to the room on Day 1. The subject will first come in to

solve the jigsaw puzzle with the Emotiv EEG headset on without any distractions in order for us

to record the brain waves of the subject in a resting, controlled atmosphere. The subject will be

given 8 minutes to work on the puzzle, but they will not be told that there is a time limit. The

trial described below is the controlled procedure that will be conducted on the subject’s first visit

(Day 1).

The participant will enter the room and be instructed by us to sit at the table near the center

of the room. The subject will next be fitted by us for the Emotiv Insight 5 Channel Mobile EEG

Headset. The puzzle will be laying scattered on the desk in front of them with the box sitting on

the table. Once connected to the MyEmotiv app, with no less the 60% contact quality, they will

be instructed to begin the puzzle. A stopwatch will be started simultaneously to the beginning of

the recording of the participants brain waves. We will stay outside of the room for the allotted

time of eight minutes before stopping the stopwatch and re-entering the room to dismiss the

subject.

The same subject will then come back to the same room the next day to complete a second

jigsaw puzzle (of equal difficulty). This time the distractions will be implemented into the time

period thus, Day 2 is the experimental group for each subject. The trial described below is the

experimental procedure that will be conducted on the subject’s second visit (Day 2).
IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
9

The participant will enter the room and will be instructed by us to sit at the table near the

center of the room. The stack of papers, contact solution, and an Apple iPhone, as described in

the materials section, will already be sitting on a separate table at the front of the room. For

descriptive purposes, this table will be called “the distraction table”. The subject will next be

fitted by us for the Emotiv Insight 5 Channel Mobile EEG Headset. The puzzle will be laying

scattered on the desk in front of them with the box sitting on the table. Once connected to the

MyEmotiv app, with no less the 60% contact quality, they will be instructed to begin the puzzle.

A stopwatch will be started simultaneously to the beginning of the recording of the participants

brain waves. After exiting the room we will stay outside of the room with the extras. The extras

will be instructed to enter the rooms at specific intervals according to the timing by the

stopwatch. The human distraction will be implemented first (2:00-2:10). This interruption will

include one extra entering the room. They will walk across the room to the distraction table, take

the contact solution, and leave the room. The next distracting trigger will be the technological

ringer (4:00-4:30). A call will sound from the phone sitting at the front table and ring for

approximately 30 seconds. The following distraction is human presence and talking (5:20-5:40).

Two extras will walk into the room maintaining constant conversation and retrieve a stack of

papers, then exit the room. The final distraction is the loud noise (6:30). A small text book will

be dropped outside of the room. This is to distract the participant in a more sudden way then the

other distractions. The subject will continue to work on the puzzle for the remaining time. At

approximately eight minutes the stopwatch will be stopped and we will walk into the room and

tell the subject that we are finished with the experiment and debrief him or her (explaining the

implications of the study) before they leave.

IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
10

The independent variable in the experimental trial on Day 2 are the distractions we have

chosen to implement (i.e. human presence, technological ringer, human presence and talking,

and loud noise). The dependent variable we are evaluating is the level of focus of each

participant-by​ ​measuring the brain waves through means of the Emotive Mobile EEG Headset.
 IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
11

RESULTS

Participant Focus Level without Distractions Focus Level with Distractions

Control Group Experimental Group

1 Senior Boy Time 2:00-2:10: 65 - 30= 35 Human Presence (2:00-2:10): 58 - 18 = 40

Time 4:00-4:30: 82 - 32= 50 Technological (4:00-4:30): 61- 19 = 42
Time 5:20-5:40: 61 - 12= 49 Human Presence and Talking: (5:20-5:40): 61- 9 = 52
Time 6:30: 20 Loud Noise (6:30): 60

2 Senior Boy Time 2:00: 50 - 18 = 32 Human Presence: 70 - 8 = 62

Time 4:00: 41 - 14 = 27 Technological: 56 - 15 = 41
Time 5:20: 69 - 26 = 43 Human Presence and Talking: 52 - 17 = 35
Time 6:30: 18 Loud Noise: 45

3 Senior Girl Time 2:00 - 24 - 14 = 10 Human Presence: 47 - 12 = 35

Time 4:00 - 55 - 19 = 36 Technological: 51- 8 = 43
Time 5:20 - 38 - 17 = 21 Human Presence and Talking: n/a
Time 6:30 - 18 Loud Noise: 11

4 Senior Girl Time 2:00- 61-17= 44 Human Presence: 56 - 31=25

Time 4:00- 59-18=41 Technological: 59 - 19= 40
Time 5:20- 52 - 17= 35 Human Presence and Talking: 55 - 12 = 43
Time 6:30- 38 Loud Noise: 56

5 Junior Boy Time 2:00 - 76 - 37 = 39 Human Presence: 41- 12 = 29

Time 4:00 - 68 - 9 = 59 Technological: 47 - 5 = 42
Time 5:20 - 61- 11 = 50 Human Presence and Talking: 56 - 16 = 40
Time 6:30- 33 Loud Noise: 64

6 Junior Boy Time 2:00 - 58 -12 = 46 Human Presence: 31- 3 = 28

Time 4:00 - 49 -18 = 31 Technological: 74 - 8= 66
Time 5:20 - 50 - 1= 49 Human Presence and Talking: 56 - 7 = 49
Time 6:30 - 22 Loud Noise: 49

7 Junior Girl Time 2:00- 51-30 = 21 Human Presence: 55- 0 = 55

Time 4:00- 50-30 = 20 Technological: 60 - 23 = 37
Time 5:20- 50-21= 29 Human Presence and Talking: 50- 3 = 47
Time 6:30- 40 Loud Noise: 38
 IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
12

8 Junior Girl Time 2:00- 50-20 = 30 Human Presence: 48 - 10 = 38

Time 4:00- 61-22 = 39 Technological: 46 - 9 = 37
Time 5:20- 61-19 = 42 Human Presence and Talking: 43 - 8 = 55
Time 6:30- 44 Loud Noise: 20

9 Sophomore Boy Time 2:00- 50-20 = 30 Human Presence: 44- 18 = 26

Time 4:00- 62-6 = 56 Technological: 57 - 17 = 40
Time 5:20- 62-19 = 43 Human Presence and Talking:38 - 15 =23
Time 6:30- n/a Loud Noise: 30

10 Sophomore Boy Time 2:00 - 40-5=35 Human Presence: 56-17= 39

Time 4:00 - 53-1= 52 Technological: 44-18= 26
Time 5:20 - 48-9=39 Human Presence and Talking: 63-10= 53
Time 6:30 - 22 Loud Noise: 60

11 Sophomore Girl Time 2:00- 41-5= 36 Human Presence: 47 - 33=14

Time 4:00- 67-4= 63 Technological: 57 - 17= 40
Time 5:20- 80-4=76 Human Presence and Talking: 54 - 9= 45
Time 6:30- 43 Loud Noise: 10

12 Sophomore Girl Time 2:00- 39-19=20 Human Presence: 71- 26 = 45

Time 4:00- 60-18=42 Technological: 55 - 8 = 47
Time 5:20- 79-4= 75 Human Presence and Talking: 49 - 6 = 43
Time 6:30- 62 Loud Noise: n/a

13 Freshman Boy Time 2:00- 50-20= 30 Human Presence: 57 - 35 = 22

Time 4:00- 50-18=32 Technological: 59 - 17 = 42
Time 5:20- 62-9= 53 Human Presence and Talking: 38 - 9= 29
Time 6:30- 20 Loud Noise: 20

14 Freshman Girl Time 2:00- 76-42= 34 Human Presence: 48 - 30 = 18

Time 4:00- 59-21= 38 Technological: 58 - 34 = 24
Time 5:20- 56-20= 36 Human Presence and Talking: 64 - 16 = 48
Time 6:30- 21 Loud Noise: 50

(*n/a indicates that contact quality was too low to record data)
IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
13

(**The y-axis of our graphs contain the label “Focus Level” but no units are given because the

technology of the MyEmotiv app coupled with the use of the Emotiv EEG headband did not

indicate the unit of measurement used.)

The results in our table are based upon a timeline of distractions that we created as a

control mechanism. This timeline can be found in Appendix C. The distractions were timed to

the exact second for every participant, so that they all matched the timeline. The times in the

table above correlate with the times of implementation of the distractions.

Although 16 participants were desired to be tested in order to give a complete high school

representation, only 14 participants were tested due to time constraints.

Due to our participant’s busy class schedules, it was not always possible for the

participant to return on Day 2 for testing. For instance, Participant 3 did not return until a week

after her initial testing.

This is a concise list of all the implemented distractions:

Grab and Go (2:00- 2:10) - One person walks into the test room, grabs a bottle of contact

solution, and walks out of the room. This serves as a human distraction.

Phone Rings (4:00- 4:30) - A cell phone sitting in the test room will receive a call and ring for 30

seconds. This serves as the technological ringer distraction.

Talk Team (5:20- 5:40) - The talk team is composed of 2-3 people that enter the test room and

immediately begin conversation. They must remain talking the whole time. This serves as the

human presence and talking distraction.

Big Bang (6:30) - At this point on the timeline, a large textbook is dropped just outside the door

of the test room. This serves as a loud sound distraction.

IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
14

Distraction Level

In both the control and experimental section of our table, there are three numbers

presented. The first two numbers represent the highest focus level and the lowest focus level of

the participant, respectively. These numbers come from analyzing the indicated time stamp

rather than simply looking at the beginning focus level and the ending focus level. The third

number is the difference between the first two numbers (highest minus lowest focus level). For

descriptive purposes, we’ll call this number the ​distraction level​. The higher the distraction level,

the more impactful the distraction was on the participant because there is a larger gap between

the highest and lowest waves within the given time stamp, thus, the distraction is distracting.

Conversely, the lower the distraction level, the less of an impact was made on the participant by

the distraction because there is a smaller gap between the highest and lowest waves, thus, the

distraction is not distracting.

IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
15
IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
16
IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
17

DISCUSSION

From our results, there are three ways the data can be interpreted. The data may suggest

that “yes” the distraction was truly distracting rather than a random occurrence. Or the data may

indicate that “no”, the implemented distraction did not change the amount of focus. A

participant is considered to be distracted when the distraction level is higher during the

experimental trial than in the control trial. A participant is considered not to be distracted when

the opposite happens; the distraction level in the control trial is greater than in the experimental

trial. Lastly, the data can lead to an inconclusive result labeled as “n/a”. N/a means that the

contact quality between the participant and EEG is too low to be recorded.

We will only look at the instances in which the experimental distraction level is greater

than the control distraction level. This establishes that the distraction is significant. We are using

these specific instances because the purpose of our thesis is to determine the most distracting

interruption (rather than determining which is a distraction). After determining these instances of

true distraction, we took the difference between the experimental distraction level and the control

distraction level at each separate instance. We then added those numbers together to get the total

distraction level for that distraction. This number (total distraction level) was then divided by the

total number of instances in order to get the average change of participant focus for each

distraction.

When compared to the control, the human presence​ ​distraction disrupted the participant’s

focus by an average change of 18.71. The average change when the participant was shown to be

distracted was 18.71. The average change when the participant didn't seem distracted was 13.86.

Since the change was larger when the participant was distracted, then this means that the human
IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
18

presence was an affective distraction. Due to this finding, we suggest that human presence will

harm a study environment. According to our findings, even without noise or talking of any kind,

the presence of another person affects the brain to make one distracted. It may be helpful to study

in an isolated environment.

In the data set regarding human presence and talking, Participant 3’s data was unreadable

because the contact quality became too low for the EEG to document, therefore we were not able

to record valid data for that person. In order to effectively use her data we must be able to find

the difference between the control and experimental values. This was unable to occur because

contact quality was too low in one of the trials. Therefore, we were forced to throw out her

numbers from the data set for this particular distraction. That makes the sample of participants

decrease to 13 participants. Another flaw in the data set were the results from Participant 6. The

EEG recorded the same level of focus for both the control and the experimental at this point on

the timeline (5:20) for this participant. The difference between his control and experimental is

thus obviously zero. We did not know where to place his data but felt it relevant to still include

his results. So we kept his data in both groups; his data is apart of both the control average and

the experimental average. When compared to the control, the human presence and talking

distraction disrupted the participant’s focus by a change of 9.71. When the participant wasn’t

distracted, the change in focus was 17.86. Since the change was smaller when the participant was

distracted, then this means that the human presence and talking wasn’t an affective distraction.

This could be because some of the participants may be able to zone in to the task at hand and

block out those around them. A participant’s typical study habits and environments such as large
IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
19

families and listening to loud music could have influenced the results. We will not know for sure

because we didn’t ask the participant of their typical study habits before we tested them.

For the technological distraction part of our test, we called a cell phone that sat in the

room with the participant. Since there are only two of us, then we only have two phones. We

found it hard to figure out who’s phone to leave in the room. One of our phones was recording

the data, while the other was timing. We tried facetiming a laptop that was set in the room for

our first three trials, but the laptop didn’t ring. For the remaining trials (trials 4-14) we used one

of the extras’ phones. Therefore, we will not use the first three participants data in finding the

average change of focus. There was no distraction at this point in their trials, so the data could

sway the results if included. Thus, the pool of participants is decreased from 14 individuals to 11

individuals for this distraction only. When compared to the control, the technological distraction

disrupted the participant’s focus by a change of 16.75. When the participants were focused there

was only a 14.14 average change of focus. Since the change was larger when the participant was

distracted, then this means that technology is a distraction. Our generation immediately looks at

our phones when it goes off to check what is going on. We are also known for being addicted to

social media and our online presence. Due to this, there may be a larger influence of this

distraction on the selected population we tested, teenagers, rather than those of older generations

(technology plays a lesser part in the lives of the older generations).

When compared to the control, the loud noise distraction disrupted the participant’s

average change in focus level by a change of 13.2. The average change of focus level when the

control was greater than the experimental was 26.25. These numbers were found in the same

manner as the other distraction data so as to compare the loud noise distraction to the others; this
IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
20

allows us to conclude which distraction is the most harmful. Since the loud noise distraction only

had a single focus level, and thus a distraction level could not be found, we also found the

average of all the combined control focus levels and the combined experimental focus levels.

These found average focus levels were used to determine if the loud noise was a true distraction.

The average focus level of the control trails is 30.8. The average focus level of the experimental

trails is 39.46. When looking at the loud sound distraction, if the level of focus in the control is

greater than the level of focus in the experimental, then the loud sound would be considered an

effective distraction. If the reverse is true, where the experimental focus is greater than the

control focus, the distraction would not be considered authentic. Therefore, the loud noise

distraction wasn’t authentic. These numbers don’t account for any loss of focus in the resulting

seconds after the sound was implemented. Any decreased level of concentration seen in a short

time period after the loud noise was implemented was unable to be reflected in these graphs.

Our numbers disprove our hypothesis that technology is the most harmful distraction.

Although technology was proved as a true distraction, the average change in focus was greater

for the human presence distraction (18.71 > 16.75). Human presence and talking as well as a

loud noise were both deemed ineffective distractions.

Some limitations with this study include the technology used, the participant number, and

the puzzle size. Although the Emotiv 5 Channel EEG headset has five sensors, there are many

other EEG headbands that have a higher number of sensors and give more accurate data.When

using the Emotiv Insight and the MyEmotiv app there was no unit of measurement that labeled

the focus levels. Other technology may have given us a Hz measurement, which would be more

precise. In our study, we limited our participant pool to students from Central Magnet School,
IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
21

and at that only used a few from each grade. In order to get more accurate results a larger and

more diverse group of students could have been used. When considering the size of the puzzle

we used, we wanted a larger puzzle so that the participants wouldn't be able to complete the

puzzle in our eight minute experiment time. We used the first two same sized puzzles we found,

which were 500 pieces. This could have been a stressor to the participant and cause them to

focus less. If they had the mentality that they wouldn't finish the puzzle anyway they may not

even try. A more suitable jigsaw puzzle may have been one of 200 pieces. A final limitation to

this study was the time constants. After completing the study we found an article in the New

York Times that describes a study done by ​Gloria Mark of the University of California, Irvine.

“Mark found that… it takes an average of 25 minutes to return to the original task after an

interruption” ​(Sullivan, & Thompson, 2013). Since we implemented four distractions in an eight

minute time then this may have skewed our results.

IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
22

CONCLUSION

This study identified that human presence is the most harmful distraction to a focused

mental state of study. According to the data, technological ringer distractions are not as

distracting as a human presence. Our data is misrepresented to some degree because half of our

distractions were proven by the numbers, not to be truly distracting. This is most likely due to the

limitations mentioned in our discussion. The understanding of distractions is important to those

of all ages. In order to maintain a higher level of focus while completing a task, we suggest

studying in an isolated environment with no human presence.

IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
23

References

Arseneaultb, L., Belskya, D., Dicksonc, N., Hancoxc, R. J., Harringtona, H., Houtsa, R., . .

. Moffitt, T. E. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth,

and public safety. Retrieved from

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/7/2693.full?tab=author-info

Buttonwood. (2014, December 16). The joy of puzzles. Retrieved from

https://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2014/12/brain-training

Craik, F. I. (2014, July 29). Effects of distraction on memory and cognition: A

commentary. Retrieved from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4114291/

Cunningham, A. (2011, July 1). Kids' Self-Control Is Crucial for Their Future Success.

Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/where-theres-a-will/

EMOTIV Insight Brainwear® 5 Channel Wireless EEG Headset. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.emotiv.com/insight/

Liu, N., Chiang, C., & Chu, H. (2013, August 09). Recognizing the Degree of Human

Attention Using EEG Signals from Mobile Sensors. Retrieved from

http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/13/8/10273/htm

Mark, G., Gudith, D., & Klocke, U. (n.d.). The Cost of Interrupted Work: More Speed and

Stress.

Reed, L. (2016, January 14). Digital distraction in class is on the rise, study says. Retrieved

from https://phys.org/news/2016-01-digital-distraction-class.html
IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
24

Sullivan, B., & Thompson, H. (2013, May 05). Brain, Interrupted. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/opinion/sunday/a-focus-on-distraction.html

Teplan, M. (2002). ​Fundamentals of EEG Measurement​ [Scholarly project]. In ​Institute of

Measurement Science​. Retrieved August 11, 2017, from

http://www.edumed.org.br/cursos/neurociencia/MethodsEEGMeasurement.pdf

Yates, D. (2011, February 8). Brief diversions vastly improve focus, researchers find.

Retrieved from https://news.illinois.edu/blog/view/6367/205427

IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
25

APPENDIX A

Letter of Participation
IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
26

APPENDIX B

Parent Consent Form

IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
27

APPENDIX C

Experimental Distractions Timeline

IDENTIFYING DISTRACTIONS TO CONCENTRATION
28

APPENDIX D