Study of how GenAI use and task context relate to professional developers' perceived cognitive load and whether wearable-derived physiological characteristics provide additional information beyond this context suggests developers' perceived cognitive load during GenAI-supported software development should be evaluated in relation to the concrete work context.
Abstract
Generative AI (GenAI) is changing software development workflows and how developers work. Industry evaluations of GenAI adoption often monitor productivity gains, usage, and output quality, but limited attention is paid to the interaction experience and cognitive load of the actual adopters and drivers of GenAI technology - the software developers. Understanding whether GenAI changes or shifts developers'cognitive demands during everyday development is important for a developer-centered evaluation of GenAI-supported software development. It can inform organizations in designing and evaluating effective AI-supported workflows. In this work, we study how GenAI use and task context relate to professional developers'perceived cognitive load and whether wearable-derived physiological characteristics provide additional information beyond this context. In a four-day industrial field study at two SAP sites, 21 developers documented their tasks, task duration, GenAI use, and perceived cognitive load while wearing an EmbracePlus wristband. The results show that perceived cognitive load is associated with both GenAI use and task context, while physiological measures provide only limited additional information. These findings suggest that developers'perceived cognitive load during GenAI-supported software development should be evaluated in relation to the concrete work context, with wearable physiological data used as complementary rather than standalone information.
This study evaluates Vibe Coding, an emerging AI-led conversational programming paradigm that enables developers to generate software through natural-language interaction with large language models (LLMs). Using a mixed-methods design, the study assessed performance efficiency, cognitive implications, and responsible a...
Sales Aribe Jr.· International Journal on Adv...· 0 citations
This research unpacks the problem-solving strategies, collaboration patterns, and agency shifts underlying human–GenAI collaboration in software engineering education using a mixed-methods approach.
Sonika Pal· Proceedings of the 2026 ACM...· 0 citations
Context: Developer efficiency is influenced by technical, organizational, cognitive, and communication-related factors. However, most studies rely on one-time assessments or fixed instruments, limiting the ability to monitor how barriers emerge and change over time, especially in consulting and professional education c...
D. Ribeiro, B. Alves, G. Souza et al.· 1 citation· ⚡1
This study investigates professional developers' attitudes, decision-making, and development practices related to software energy consumption, with particular emphasis on how energy considerations are recognized, assessed, and acted upon during software development.
Max Weber, Alina Mailach, Florian Sattler et al.· 0 citations
A harmonized perspective on digital nudging is introduced, in which multiple strategies are systematically integrated to provide consistent and context-aware decision support, in which multiple strategies are systematically integrated to provide consistent and context-aware decision support.
I. Pribik, Alexander Felfernig· Frontiers in Artificial Inte...· 0 citations
AI-enabled software development tools (AI-devtools) are being industrially adopted under strong expectations of productivity gains, yet developers'experiences of such roll-outs are underexplored. Organizations commit budgets, evaluate staff, and revise practice on a partial picture, since the evidence base is mainly to...
Andreas Bexell, Rushali Gupta, L. Heander et al.· 0 citations
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 7, 2026
Students in MIT’s Concourse program delve deeply into the human condition, debate challenging questions, and learn to develop judgment about issues that can’t be quantified.
Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity. The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduSep 30, 2026
Able to defeat top-ranked human players and more efficient than other models, the new system could help decision-makers in military maneuvers or business negotiations.