Android Memory Smart RAM Booster Pro Apk V2.0
Mica Withington
Altmann, Trafton, and Hambrick suggested that as little as a 3-second distraction (e.g. reaching for a cell phone) is adequate to disrupt attention while performing a cognitive task [4]. This distraction is disadvantageous to subsequent cognitive tasks, creating more errors as the distraction period increases, and this is particularly evident in classroom settings. While teachers and parents are for [5] or against cell phones in classrooms [6], empirical evidence showed that students who used their phones in class took fewer notes [7] and had poorer overall academic performance, compared to those who did not [8,9]. Students often multitask in classrooms and even more so with smartphones in hand. One study showed no significant difference in in-class test scores, regardless of whether they were using instant messaging [10]. However, texters took a significantly longer time to complete the in-class test, suggesting that texters required more cognitive effort in memory recall [10]. Other researchers have posited that simply the presence of a cell phone may have detrimental effects on learning and memory as well. Research has shown that a mobile phone left next to the participant while completing a task, is a powerful distractor even when not in use [11,12]. Their findings showed that mobile phone participants could perform similarly to control groups on simple versions of specific tasks (e.g. visual spatial search, digit cancellation), but performed much poorer in the demanding versions. In another study, researchers controlled for the location of the smartphone by taking the smartphones away from participants (low salience, LS), left the smartphone next to them (high salience/HS), or kept the smartphones in bags or pockets (control) [13]. Results showed that participants in LS condition performed significantly better compared to HS, while no difference was established between control and HS conditions. Taken together, these findings confirmed that the smartphone is a distractor even when not in use. Further, smartphone presence also increases cognitive load, because greater cognitive effort is required to inhibit distractions.
-Probably the biggest issue I found was the interpretation of their results. For example, on pg. 17, the authors state that "Although we did not find a significant relationship between SAS to memory accuracy, our measurements to 'phone conscious thought' is more relevant and meaningful because it measured participants separation anxiety..." This simply cannot be true: First, the question representing" phone conscious thought" asks "During the memory test how often do you think of your smartphone?" What does this even mean, exactly? How did participants interpret this question? Either way, I think it is quite a stretch to consider this anxiety. And, second, the SAS included a "'Withdrawal' sub-factor [that] describ[ed] the feeling of anxiety when separated from one's mobile phone." (pg. 9), but the authors found no significant correlations for any of the subfactors. Thus, not sure how a vague question about thoughts better represents anxiety than the specify subfactor of the SAS.
However in our study, we used OS Span task which is considered a complex task compared to simple memory span (4). Although we did not include simple memory span as a contrast to OS Span, previous studies suggest that this is not necessary because of similar performance levels across conditions. One of our aims was to replicate a previous study in investigating whether the presence of a smartphone was sufficient to affect memory recall accuracy (5). We found that our participants had significant difference in memory recall accuracy between HS and LS conditions, p = .02. While our results concurred with previous study findings, we are unable to tease apart whether the presence of the smartphone had interfered with encoding, consolidation, or recall phase in our participants. However there is a possibility that the separation from their smartphones may have caused feelings of anxiety, and anxiety may interrupt memory consolidation as suggested by some (6,7). This is certainly something of consideration for future studies.
Second, to the bandwidth effect interfering memory processes, we suspect that this might be the case, rather than an issue of failure in a specific memory process. This is because participants with smartphones or texters could generally perform simple cognitive tasks as well as those without, and the presence of the smartphone next to the participant is responsible for the increase in cognitive load (1,3,5).
I and another reviewer have carefully read your paper and the revisions that you made. You have addressed many of the points but a few more changes need to be implemented before it can be accepted. The main issues concern the introduction. One phrase in Line 62 has no verb and therefore can not be a sentence. You need to correct the grammatical structure. Secondly it would be good if the introductory sentence to the paragraph beginning on line 61 indicated the relationship between cognition and affect is important for understanding the impact of mobile phone use on memory. As it is written the paragraph does link well to the previous paragraphs. Further line 82 makes reference to smart phone addiction very briefly but the discussion focuses a great deal on smart phone addiction. You need to define smart phone addiction and indicate why it is important to examine this construct in your study. Further you need to define the subscales in of the SAS in the methods and also justify under phone consious thought why you are including this question.
Introducing the BLU View 2, filled with amazing features such as 32GB internal memory paired with 3GB RAM, Android 11 OS, battery friendly Quad-Core processor, and much more. The all new BLU View 2 smartphone pushes the limit to the edge with a gorgeous 5.5'' HD+ incell display, 64-Bit Quad-Core processor, 13MP Main Camera with Flash, and 8MP Camera for selfie lovers!
UFS uses a layered architecture, consisting of a UFS host/device controller layer, a transport layer (UniPro), and a physical layer (MIPI M-PHY). The host interface layer is the interface between the host (e.g., a smartphone) and the UFS storage device. UFS is also divided by host and device, with the host handling the data transfer from the application processor to the device as storage IC and the device managing the flash memory chips and other hardware components. A command queue system manages data transfers between the host and the device. This approach allows the device to handle multiple read and write requests simultaneously, improving performance.