MEMORY-SUPPORT TECHNOLOGIES IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: COGNITIVE OFFLOADING, SOCIETAL IMPLICATIONS, AND CONDITIONS FOR RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION

Jakub Winiarczyk; Karolina Dąbrowska; Emilia Lenkiewicz; Julia Żak; Zuzanna Rybka; Weronika Trynkiewicz; Maja Kaczor; Alicja Maciejewska; Marta Omiecińska; Monika Stępińska

doi:10.31435/ijitss.2(50).2026.5257

Authors

Jakub Winiarczyk Independent Public Health Care Complex in Pruszków, Pruszków, Poland https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8163-5580
Karolina Dąbrowska Wojewódzki Szpital w Łomży, Łomża, Poland https://orcid.org/0009-0002-9053-2002
Emilia Lenkiewicz National Medical Institute of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, Warsaw, Poland https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4822-8157
Julia Żak Czerniakowski Hospital, Warsaw, Poland https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3383-8025
Zuzanna Rybka University Clinical Center of the Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4056-8800
Weronika Trynkiewicz Ludwik Rydygier Specialist Hospital, Kraków, Poland https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2267-7166
Maja Kaczor National Medical Institute of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, Warsaw, Poland https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8218-5429
Alicja Maciejewska Independent Public Health Care Complex in Pruszków, Pruszków, Poland https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6903-2434
Marta Omiecińska Międzyleski Specialist Hospital of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland https://orcid.org/0009-0002-3134-8141
Monika Stępińska University Clinical Center of the Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0347-2704

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31435/ijitss.2(50).2026.5257

Keywords:

Memory-Support Technologies, Cognitive Offloading, AI-Enabled Memory Assistants, Lifelogging, Clinical Cognitive Prosthetics, Algorithmic Accountability

Abstract

Research objective: This integrative review examines the impact of memory-aided technology on the encoding, storage, retrieval, and coordination of everyday activities and shared information practices: smartphone reminders, cloud storage, wearable lifelogs, clinical cognitive prostheses, and AI personal assistants, as well as the implications that exist at both the individual and institutional levels.

Methodology: An integrative review was conducted by synthesizing evidence across disciplines including Cognitive Psychology, Human-Computer Interaction, Neuro-Rehabilitation, Governance of Artificial Intelligence, and Digital Rights. The data were then organized using a Taxonomy of Evidence-Informed Technology Families.

Findings: Externalizing memory has been found to have numerous benefits, including decreasing cognitive load, improving performance, and increasing independence. However, there are also trade-offs associated with externalizing memory, such as the shift towards "where-to-find" encoding, the potential for altered metacognitive calibration, decreased effort, attentional costs, or dependence on the device.

Societal Findings: These types of devices have also enabled coordination, continuity, and accountability; however, they also pose risks to users' privacy and consent, the use of biased algorithms, users' autonomy, and equal access to these devices.

Conclusion: To responsibly deploy memory-aided technology will require designers to create user-centered and clinically grounded products, evaluate them over time to determine their effects beyond accuracy, incorporate privacy-by-design principles into the development process, create transparent and auditable pipelines for artificial intelligence systems, plan for future compatibility and continuity, provide users with training and support services, and develop regulatory frameworks and standards that protect users' rights.

References

Allé, M. C., Manning, L., Potheegadoo, J., Coutelle, R., Danion, J.-M., & Berna, F. (2017). Wearable cameras are useful tools to investigate and remediate autobiographical memory impairment: A systematic PRISMA review. Neuropsychology Review, 27(1), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-016-9337-x

Boman, I.-L., Tham, K., Granqvist, A., Bartfai, A., & Hemmingsson, H. (2007). Using electronic aids to daily living after acquired brain injury: A study of learning and usability. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483100600856213

Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 77–91. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html

Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7

de Fine Licht, K., & de Fine Licht, J. (2020). Artificial intelligence, transparency, and public decision-making: Why explanations are key when trying to produce perceived legitimacy. AI & Society, 35(4), 917–926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00960-w

Diakopoulos, N. (2015). Algorithmic accountability. Digital Journalism, 3(3), 398–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.976411

European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj

Felzmann, H., Villaronga, E. F., Lutz, C., & Tamò-Larrieux, A. (2019). Transparency you can trust: Transparency requirements for artificial intelligence between legal norms and contextual concerns. Big Data & Society, 6(1), Article 205395171986054. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719860542

Firth, J., Torous, J., Stubbs, B., Firth, J. A., Steiner, G. Z., Smith, L., Alvarez-Jimenez, M., Gleeson, J., Vancampfort, D., Armitage, C. J., & Sarris, J. (2019). The “online brain”: How the internet may be changing our cognition. World Psychiatry, 18(2), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20617

Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Wortman Vaughan, J., Wallach, H., Daumé, H., III, & Crawford, K. (2018). Datasheets for datasets (arXiv:1803.09010). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1803.09010

Greenaway, M. C., Duncan, N. L., & Smith, G. E. (2013). The memory support system for mild cognitive impairment: Randomized trial of a cognitive rehabilitation intervention. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 28(4), 402–409. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.3838

Henkel, L. A. (2014). Point-and-shoot memories: The influence of taking photos on memory for a museum tour. Psychological Science, 25(2), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504438

Hodges, S., Williams, L., Berry, E., Izadi, S., Srinivasan, J., Butler, A., Smyth, G., Kapur, N., & Wood, K. (2006). SenseCam: A retrospective memory aid. In P. Dourish & A. Friday (Eds.), UbiComp 2006: Ubiquitous computing (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4206, pp. 177–193). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/11853565_11

Jamieson, M., Cullen, B., McGee-Lennon, M., Brewster, S., & Evans, J. J. (2014). The efficacy of cognitive prosthetic technology for people with memory impairments: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24(3–4), 419–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2013.825632

Jamieson, M., Cullen, B., McGee-Lennon, M., Brewster, S., & Evans, J. J. (2017). Technological memory aid use by people with acquired brain injury. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 27(6), 919–936. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2015.1103760

Kalnikaitė, V., & Whittaker, S. (2007). Software or wetware? Discovering when and why people use digital prosthetic memory. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 71–80). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240635

Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., Barnes, P., Vasserman, L., Hutchinson, B., Spitzer, E., Raji, I. D., & Gebru, T. (2019). Model cards for model reporting. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 220–229). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287596

National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1

National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative AI Profile (NIST AI 600-1). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1

Nissenbaum, H. (2009). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804772891

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence (OECD/LEGAL/0449). https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449

Pauly-Takacs, K., Moulin, C. J. A., & Estlin, E. J. (2011). SenseCam as a rehabilitation tool in a child with severe memory impairment. Memory, 19(7), 707–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.494046

Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., Smith-Loud, J., Theron, D., & Barnes, P. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 33–44). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873

Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002

Sachdeva, C., & Gilbert, S. J. (2020). Excessive use of reminders: Metacognition and effort-minimisation in cognitive offloading. Consciousness and Cognition, 85, Article 103024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2020.103024

Scarampi, C., & Gilbert, S. J. (2020). The effect of recent reminder setting on subsequent strategy and performance in a prospective memory task. Memory, 28(5), 677–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2020.1764974

Sellen, A. J., Fogg, A., Aitken, M., Hodges, S., Rother, C., & Wood, K. (2007). Do life-logging technologies support memory for the past? An experimental study using SenseCam. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 81–90). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240636

Sellen, A. J., & Whittaker, S. (2010). Beyond total capture: A constructive critique of lifelogging. Communications of the ACM, 53(5), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/1735223.1735243

Silva, A. R., Pinho, M. S., Macedo, L., Moulin, C., Caldeira, S., & Firmino, H. (2017). It is not only memory: Effects of SenseCam on improving well-being in patients with mild Alzheimer disease. International Psychogeriatrics, 29(5), 741–754. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104161021600243X

Silva, A. R., Pinho, M. S., Macedo, L., & Moulin, C. J. A. (2018). A critical review of the effects of wearable cameras on memory. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 28(1), 117–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2015.1128450

Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–778. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207745

Storm, B. C., & Stone, S. M. (2015). Saving-enhanced memory: The benefits of saving on the learning and remembering of new information. Psychological Science, 26(2), 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614559285

UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/recommendation-ethics-artificial-intelligence

Ward, A. F., Duke, K., Gneezy, A., & Bos, M. W. (2017). Brain drain: The mere presence of one’s own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1086/691462