CortexLit

CortexLit tool · Learning and attention · Runs offline · No account

Fidget Test Tracker

Run a two-week with-and-without test on one task and compare output, drift counts and time.

← Back to the article · See the evidence

This tool gives general information based on the research summarised in Fidgeting, Doodling and Focus. It is not a medical device, does not diagnose, and does not replace advice from your clinician.

Your inputs

Share (opt-in)

Off by default. Anything here is built on your own device and nothing is uploaded. Pick exactly what goes on the card.

Preview of exactly what would be shared:










Free vs Plus




Free (this page)
  • rate comparison with drift counts
  • plain-language reading
  • text export and print
  • all citations and cautions


Plus (optional, one-time)
  • calendar (.ics) test week reminders
  • unlimited share images
  • share card without the 'Made with CortexLit' footer


Checkout isn't live yet, so Plus is unlocked here with a local code. The check runs in your browser and can be bypassed; it is a placeholder for a real payment link.






Free tier: 1 share image per result.






Commercial disclosure: optional paid Plus tier; all evidence, cautions and the main result are free. No affiliate links, no sponsors.







What this is based on


Every output names at least one verified PubMed source. Identifiers were verified on 2026-10-11 in an earlier batch and carried over into this build; they were not re-queried here, and no retraction database was checked. Verification was at abstract level.


Spencer-Mueller 2024
Spencer-Mueller EK, Fenske MJ. Note-taking for the win: Doodling does not reduce boredom or mind-wandering, nor enhance attention or retention of lecture material. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2024;77(8):1780-1796. doi:10.1177/17470218231222402. PMID: 38087918.
PMID 38087918 · controlled experiment · weight 0.5 · abstract level
Vasilev 2018
Vasilev MR, Kirkby JA, Angele B. Auditory Distraction During Reading: A Bayesian Meta-Analysis of a Continuing Controversy. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018;13(5):567-597. doi:10.1177/1745691617747398. PMID: 29958067.
PMID 29958067 · systematic review meta analysis · weight 1.0 · abstract level
Shen 2025
Shen Y. Distractions in digital reading: a meta-analysis of attentional interference effects. Front Psychol. 2025;16:1671214. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1671214. PMID: 41368163.
PMID 41368163 · systematic review meta analysis · weight 1.0 · abstract level


Limits: A two-week self-comparison cannot control for order, workload or time of day, and drift counts are self-reported. It is an observation about you, not evidence.







Privacy


Inputs stay in this page's memory. There is no telemetry, no analytics call and no network request. Saving is opt-in, local to this browser, deletable, and unencrypted.