AzTrials
AzTrials

Cognitive ChangeNCT06511102

Impact of GPT Use on Essay Writing Performance and Cognitive Abilities

A study testing GPT Support in people with Cognitive Change and Well-Being, Psychological, run by University Hospital Heidelberg at 1 site in Germany.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The goal of this randomized controlled lab experiment is to examine if using generated artificial intelligence (AI) technology will affect people's academic performance and cognitive abilities in the context of analytical writing among college students. The main questions it aims to answer are: 1. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 35 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for
Cognitive Change, Well-Being, Psychological
What is being tested?
GPT Support
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
160 participants
Where
1 siteGermany
Study dates
18 Jul 2024to 20 Feb 2025
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 to 35 years
  • All sexes
  • Healthy volunteers accepted
  • Adult

Who may be able to join

  • Full-time university student.
  • Able to read and write in English.
  • Use the computer most days of the week.
  • Have not taken, nor currently preparing for, the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE).
  • Do not wear glasses (contact lenses are allowed).
  • Have no eye impairment.
  • Not currently taking any opioids, epinephrine, or anti-hypertensive drugs.
  • During the experiment, not wearing any makeup around the eyes.

Who cannot join

None listed.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Germany1 site
  • Core Facility for Neuroscience of Self-Regulation, Heidelberg University

    Heidelberg

Other trials in Germany

About this study

Official title: A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Impact of Using Generative Artificial Intelligence on Analytical Writing Performance and Cognitive Abilities

The goal of this randomized controlled lab experiment is to examine if using generated artificial intelligence (AI) technology will affect people's academic performance and cognitive abilities in the context of analytical writing among college students. The main questions it aims to answer are:

  1. Does using the technology affect students' writing performance?
  2. Does using the technology affect students' cognitive effort during the writing process?
Read more

Participants will be randomly assigned to either a control group, which is writing without AI assistance, or an experimental group, which is writing with the assistance of ChatGPT. Researchers will compare the two groups to see if ChatGPT affects students' writing performance and cognitive effort.

For each participant, the lab experiment will last for no more than 1.5 hours. An eye-tracker will monitor the participant's gaze activities and pupil size. A functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) will monitor the participant's brain activities in the frontal lobe. During the experiment, participants will be asked to:

  1. Read learning materials on analytical writing techniques.
  2. Based on the previously provided materials, complete an analytical writing assignment that will take approximately 30 minutes either with or without the aid of ChatGPT.
  3. Answer survey questions about their experience with the writing assignment, attitudes on using ChatGPT, and demographic backgrounds.
Being tested
GPT Support
Medical subject headings
Psychological Well-Being

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • GPT SupportBehavioural

    The computer interface used for the essay writing task follows a split-screen design. The writing instructions and text input field are administered on a survey platform, placed on the left half of the screen. ChatGPT is placed on the right half of the screen for technology assistance.

Study groups in NCT06511102
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Intervention armExperimentalIn the intervention arm, participants are instructed to use ChatGPT for assistance to complete an analytical writing task.
Receives: Behavioral: GPT Support
Control armNo interventionIn the control arm, participants are instructed to complete an analytical writing task independently without access to any technology assistance.

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Writing Performance

    The essay writing task is derived from the Analytical Writing section in the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE), which is a worldwide and standardized computer-based exam developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS). The participants' essays will be scored on a scale from 0 to 6 by an automatic and validated third-party scoring tool that is also developed by ETS.

    Measured: 1.5 hours

  2. Cognitive Effort Measured by Pupil Size

    Cognitive effort is quantified by monitoring changes in pupil size. To achieve this, pupil diameters are recorded throughout the writing task using a near-infrared eye tracker, specifically the Tobii Pro Fusion model. At the start of the experiment, individual baseline pupil diameters are measured during a 30-second relaxation task.

    Measured: 1.5 hours

Secondary outcomes (8)
  1. Self-Perception of Writing Performance

    This is a one-item scale:

    Using the same grading rubric from before, what score do you think your essay should get (0 being the lowest and 6 being the highest)?

    The score ranges from 0 to 6. A higher score indicates higher self-perceived writing performance. The variable is treated as a continuous variable.

    Measured: 1.5 hours

  2. Self-Perception of Cognitive Effort

    This is a one-item Likert scale adapted from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration-task load index (NASA-TLX; Hart, 2006; Hart \& Staveland, 1988):

    On a scale of 1 to 7, rate how hard you have to work to accomplish your level of performance.

    The Likert score ranges from 1 to 7 (1 being "very low" and 7 being "very high"). A higher score indicates higher self-perceived cognitive effort. The variable is treated as a continuous variable.

    References:

    1. Hart, S. G. (2006). Nasa-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605000909
    2. Hart, S. G., \& Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in Psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 139-183). North-Holland.

    Measured: 1.5 hours

  3. Cognitive Effort Measured by Cortical Hemodynamic Activity in the Frontal Lobe

    Cognitive Effort is quantified by monitoring changes in the cortical hemodynamic activity in the frontal lobe. To achieve this, the brain activity is recorded throughout the writing task using a functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), specifically the NIRSport2 model.

    Measured: 1.5 hours

  4. Self-Perception of Stress

    This is a one-item Likert sub-scale adapted from the Primary Appraisal Secondary Appraisal scale (PASA; Gaab, 2009; Pollak et al., 2020):

    On a scale of 1 to 7, how much would you agree or disagree with the following statement on perceived stress: The analytical writing assignment was stressful to me.

    The Likert score ranges from 1 to 7 (1 being "strongly disagree" and 7 being "strongly agree"). A higher score indicates higher self-perceived stress. The variable is treated as a continuous variable.

    References:

    1. Gaab, J. (2009). PASA-Primary Appraisal Secondary Appraisal. A questionnaire for the assessment of cognitive appraisals of situations. Verhaltenstherapie, 19(2), 114-115.
    2. Pollak, A., Paliga, M., Pulopulos, M. M., Kozusznik, B., \& Kozusznik, M. W. (2020). Stress in manual and autonomous modes of collaboration with a cobot. Computers in Human Behavior, 112, 106469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106469

    Measured: 1.5 hours

  5. Self-Perception of Challenge

    This is a one-item Likert sub-scale adapted from the Primary Appraisal Secondary Appraisal scale (PASA; Gaab, 2009; Pollak et al., 2020):

    On a scale of 1 to 7, how much would you agree or disagree with the following statement on perceived challenge: I find the analytical writing assignment a challenge.

    The Likert score ranges from 1 to 7 (1 being "strongly disagree" and 7 being "strongly agree"). A higher score indicates higher self-perceived challenge. The variable is treated as a continuous variable.

    References:

    1. Gaab, J. (2009). PASA-Primary Appraisal Secondary Appraisal. A questionnaire for the assessment of cognitive appraisals of situations. Verhaltenstherapie, 19(2), 114-115.
    2. Pollak, A., Paliga, M., Pulopulos, M. M., Kozusznik, B., \& Kozusznik, M. W. (2020). Stress in manual and autonomous modes of collaboration with a cobot. Computers in Human Behavior, 112, 106469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106469

    Measured: 1.5 hours

  6. Self-Efficacy in Writing

    This is a sixteen-item Likert scale that measures three dimensions of writing self-efficacy: ideation, convention and self-regulation (Bruning et al., 2013). The Likert score ranges from 1 to 7 (1 being "strongly disagree" and 7 being "strongly agree"). A higher score indicates higher self-efficacy. The three dimensions will be treated separately, each as a continuous variable.

    Reference:

    1. Bruning, R., Dempsey, M., Kauffman, D. F., McKim, C., \& Zumbrunn, S. (2013). Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of educational psychology, 105(1), 25.

    Measured: 1.5 hours

  7. Situational Interest in Analytical Writing

    This is a four-item Likert scale adapted from the situational interest scale (Hulleman et al., 2010). This scale measures participants' situational interest in analytical writing:

    On a scale of 1 to 7, how much would you agree or disagree with the following statements on your interest in the analytical writing assignment that you just completed?

    1. The analytical writing assignment was interesting.
    2. Working on the essay was fun.
    3. I enjoyed writing the essay.
    4. The analytical writing assignment was enjoyable.

    The Likert score ranges from 1 to 7 (1 being "strongly disagree" and 7 being "strongly agree"). A higher score indicates higher situational interest. The variable is treated as a continuous variable.

    Reference:

    1. Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., \& Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 880.

    Measured: 1.5 hours

  8. Behavioral Intention in Using ChatGPT

    This is a two-item Likert scale that measures participants' behavioral intention in using ChatGPT in the future for essay writing tasks (Albayati, 2024):

    On a scale of 1 to 7, how much would you agree or disagree with the following statements on using ChatGPT in essay writing assignments?

    1. If I have access to ChatGPT, I would use it for essay writing tasks.
    2. I plan to use ChatGPT in the future if I have an essay writing task.

    The Likert score ranges from 1 to 7 (1 being "strongly disagree" and 7 being "strongly agree"). A higher score indicates higher behavioral intention in using ChatGPT. The variable is treated as a continuous variable.

    Reference:

    1. Albayati, H. (2024). Investigating undergraduate students' perceptions and awareness of using ChatGPT as a regular assistance tool: A user acceptance perspective study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100203

    Measured: 1.5 hours

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted19 Jul 2024
  2. Study start18 Jul 2024
  3. Primary completion20 Feb 2025
  4. Study completion20 Feb 2025

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Other
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Single blind
Who is masked
Participant
Enrolment
160 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT06511102
Sponsor's protocol ID
S-117/2024
Status last verified
Jul 2025
First submitted
15 Jul 2024
Last updated
9 Jul 2025
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No

Publications

  • Chen Y, Wang Y, Wustenberg T, Kizilcec RF, Fan Y, Li Y, Lu B, Yuan M, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Geldsetzer P, Chen S, Barnighausen T. Effects of generative artificial intelligence on cognitive effort and task performance: study protocol for a randomized controlled experiment among college students. Trials. 2025 Jul 11;26(1):244. doi: 10.1186/s13063-025-08950-3.

    PubMed 40646586

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing GPT Support in people with Cognitive Change and Well-Being, Psychological, run by University Hospital Heidelberg at 1 site in Germany.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 8 inclusion and 0 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 9 Jul 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Germany. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Writing Performance (time frame: 1.5 hours). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06511102, which also lists 1 linked publication.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 9 Jul 2025.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in