Pulse ·

You haven't lost focus — you're living in an attention theft economy

By Dr HB Lo, FACRRM 4 min read
Verdict Yes — worth knowing about

Macquarie University researchers have reframed the focus problem: you have not lost the ability to concentrate — you are switching tasks far more often, and each switch costs more than it feels like it does.

Adults receive roughly 46 push notifications daily. Research consistently shows these interruptions increase stress and reduce cognitive performance regardless of whether the notification content is important.

Three evidence-backed approaches: schedule notification windows instead of reacting live; build sustained-attention activities (music, sport, focused work blocks); protect sleep from screens in the hour before bed.

What just happened

Psychology and neuroscience researchers from Macquarie University — Patricia Morada Macabulos and Professor Anina Rich — published a piece in The Conversation on 25 June 2026 that cuts through the ambient noise about attention and focus more usefully than most things in this space.

The piece is expert commentary, not a new RCT — worth naming upfront. But it synthesises the neuroscience of attention in a way that reframes the problem: adults are not losing the capacity to concentrate. The research base on selective attention is clear that focus mechanisms are not deteriorating within a single generation. What has changed is the task-switching frequency the modern environment imposes, and the cost of each switch is real, measurable, and accumulates.

If you have been attributing your inability to concentrate to perimenopause, burnout, stress, or just getting older — some of those things may be contributing. But the environment is also doing something specific and structural, and it is worth understanding what it is, separately from the rest of the picture.

The both-and

The task-switching cost

The Macquarie researchers cite consistent research on one point: task switching impairs performance on both tasks, regardless of how familiar or simple they are. Adults receive an average of 46 push notifications daily. That is 46 interruptions to whatever else is happening — and each interruption carries a cognitive re-engagement cost that research puts at anywhere from one to 23 minutes depending on the depth of focus at the point of interruption.

The mechanism is evolutionary. The attention system was shaped for survival-level priority detection: threat, movement, resource. Digital platforms exploit this by design. A notification is a low-grade threat signal to a system that cannot distinguish between “predator approaching” and “someone commented on your post.” The system responds regardless. It has to — that is what the system does.

None of this means willpower is useless. But it does mean willpower alone is the wrong primary lever for fixing an environment that has been deliberately engineered to capture attention. The environment needs to change before the focus can.

What’s real and what’s overstated

The “we’re all becoming dopamine addicts who can’t read anything longer than a tweet” narrative is partly true and partly overblown. Attention span research is methodologically messy — most studies that claim to measure “attention span” are measuring sustained vigilance on repetitive tasks rather than the flexible, deep attention that reading, creative work, or clinical reasoning requires.

What is well supported: the interruption cost is real; the cumulative stress load of ambient notification does accumulate; and the relationship between reduced sleep quality (partly driven by screen use near bedtime) and next-day cognitive performance is robust. The Sleep Health Foundation documents the blue-light mechanism clearly: blue-wavelength screen light suppresses melatonin onset, and cognitive arousal from checking messages further delays sleep onset independently of the light effect.

What is less supported: the idea that short-form content consumption is permanently rewiring the adult brain toward an inability to engage with longer material. The brain is considerably more plastic than that narrative implies, in both directions.

Three approaches with evidence behind them

The Macquarie researchers offer three specific categories of intervention:

1. Notification management. Establishing “focus” modes that silence non-urgent notifications during designated windows, and scheduling two or three specific times to check messages rather than responding continuously. This reduces the interruption frequency to a level the attention system can recover from, rather than asking it to absorb 46 discrete re-engagement demands across the day.

2. Sustained-attention activities. Music practice, competitive sport, and structured focused work blocks — such as the Pomodoro method (25-minute focused intervals with five-minute breaks) — build capacity for extended engagement. These require the attention system to stay on task without external reward or interruption for a defined duration. The attention system, like other cognitive capacities, responds to training. It atrophies when not used in the way it was designed for.

3. Sleep protection from screens. Avoiding devices in the hour before sleep has the clearest mechanistic basis: blue-light suppression of melatonin onset is well established, and next-day concentration is measurably worse after fragmented or shortened sleep. The Sleep Health Foundation provides practical guidance on this that is consistent with the Macquarie researchers’ recommendations.

2 cents

The useful question is not “how do I focus better” — it is “what does my environment currently ask my attention to do, and is that what I want it to do?”

If concentration has been harder lately: before assuming neurological decline, check your notification volume. Turn off non-essential notifications for a week. Notice whether the quality of your attention to the things that matter shifts.

If it does not shift, that is information too. Perimenopause, thyroid function, sleep architecture, and iron status are all genuine contributors to cognitive difficulty in this age group — and they are worth investigating with your GP if the environmental changes do not move the needle. The Australasian Menopause Society has clear guidance on cognitive changes through perimenopause for anyone who wants to understand that piece of the picture specifically.

The two explanations — environmental attention theft and hormonal cognitive change — are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true. Both are worth addressing.

Verdict: yes — worth knowing about.

Sources cited

  1. The Conversation — Struggle to pay attention? How to tweak your life to help you focus. 25 June 2026. Morada Macabulos P, Rich A. Macquarie University. https://theconversation.com/struggle-to-pay-attention-how-to-tweak-your-life-to-help-you-focus-283480
  2. Sleep Health Foundation Australia — Screen time and sleep. https://www.sleephealthfoundation.org.au/screen-time-and-sleep.html
  3. Australasian Menopause Society — Cognitive changes and menopause. https://www.menopause.org.au/hp/information-sheets/cognitive-changes-and-menopause

Frequently asked questions

  • Could my concentration difficulties be perimenopause-related rather than just digital distraction?

    Both can be true simultaneously. Perimenopause-related cognitive change — commonly described as brain fog, word-finding difficulty, and reduced working memory — is well documented and driven by oestrogen fluctuation's effects on hippocampal and prefrontal function. Sleep disruption from vasomotor symptoms compounds this. At the same time, the environmental attention load from digital devices is real and operates independently of hormone status. Distinguishing between them is useful: if concentration difficulties emerged alongside other perimenopausal symptoms (irregular periods, vasomotor symptoms, sleep change), a conversation with your GP about hormonal status is warranted. If the difficulty is more situational — better on weekends, worse during heavy notification periods — the environmental explanation carries more weight. Both explanations can be present and both are worth addressing.

  • What is the Pomodoro technique and is it actually evidence-based?

    The Pomodoro technique is a structured time-management method: 25 minutes of focused work on a single task, followed by a five-minute break, repeated four times before a longer break. It was developed by Francesco Cirillo in the late 1980s and is named after a tomato-shaped kitchen timer. The research base on it specifically is limited — most studies on focused work intervals use different time parameters and the 25-minute figure is not derived from neuroscience. What is better supported is the underlying principle: that breaking work into bounded intervals with defined breaks reduces decision fatigue, creates clear stopping points that reduce procrastination, and allows the attention system to recover between sessions. If 25-minute intervals feel wrong for your work style, longer or shorter blocks may suit you better. The mechanism matters more than the timer setting.