The starting point of the review is a mismatch between two research traditions. Cognitive load theory, developed since the 1980s, describes how working memory limits shape learning and problem solving, while classical stress research from Hans Selye onward describes how organisms respond to threats through generalized physiological activation. Information overload research, in turn, has documented performance breakdowns under excessive input, but has largely treated these as information-processing failures rather than stress phenomena. Asriyan and Gevorgyan argue that this separation has obscured a key possibility: that sustained informational demands act on the body through the same allostatic machinery that governs responses to other chronic stressors.

Central to the framework is the concept of allostasis, the active process by which the body maintains stability through change. Building on work by Bruce McEwen and colleagues, the authors distinguish acute adaptive responses from allostatic load, the cumulative wear and tear that results when adaptive responses are repeatedly engaged or poorly regulated. They propose that informational stress operates in this same register: when informational demands are persistent, unpredictable, or perceived as uncontrollable, the regulatory effort they require can accumulate into a physiological burden comparable to that produced by other chronic stressors.

A distinctive feature of the proposal is its insistence that informational stress is not simply proportional to the amount of information received. Drawing on information theory, the authors argue that properties such as uncertainty, entropy, and the rate of change of incoming signals determine how much regulatory work a given stream of information demands. Two environments with the same volume of data can impose very different loads depending on their structure, and the authors suggest that these structural properties can in principle be quantified using tools from information theory rather than relying solely on subjective reports of overload.

The framework also incorporates appraisal, the evaluative process that determines whether a demand is experienced as threatening or manageable. Drawing on the transactional model of stress developed by Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman, Asriyan and Gevorgyan propose that the same informational stream can be experienced as stimulating or as stressful depending on perceived control, relevance, and available coping resources. This appraisal step explains why informational stress is not a uniform response to volume alone, and why individual and contextual differences matter so much in how overload is experienced.

To connect these ideas to measurable outcomes, the review outlines a set of potential indicators spanning multiple levels. At the cognitive level, these include attentional narrowing, working memory strain, and decision fatigue. At the affective level, they include anxiety, irritability, and the feeling of being overwhelmed. At the physiological level, the authors point to established stress markers such as cortisol, heart rate variability, and inflammatory indicators, alongside more specific measures of cognitive effort such as pupil dilation and neural markers of cognitive control. The framework proposes that these levels are linked through the allostatic process, so that sustained informational demands leave traces across all of them.

The authors are careful to distinguish informational stress from adjacent concepts. It is not the same as cognitive load, which describes momentary demands on working memory during specific tasks. It is not the same as information overload, which describes a condition of excessive input. And it is not the same as digital stress or technostress, which are typically tied to specific technologies. Instead, informational stress is defined by its process character: it emerges when informational demands are sustained, appraised as taxing, and met with regulatory responses that themselves carry costs. This positioning is intended to make the concept useful across contexts, from workplace settings to education to the design of information systems.

The review also addresses recovery, a dimension the authors argue has been neglected in overload research. If informational stress operates through allostatic mechanisms, then recovery periods are not merely pauses but active parts of the stress process, during which physiological systems return toward baseline. The framework suggests that insufficient recovery between informational demands may be a key mechanism by which overload translates into lasting strain, and it calls for research designs that track these dynamics over time rather than capturing overload only in single snapshots.

Asriyan and Gevorgyan frame their contribution as a bridge rather than a replacement. They do not claim that informational stress is a wholly new phenomenon, but rather that existing findings from cognitive load research, stress physiology, and information theory can be integrated into a single process-level account that generates testable predictions. Among these are predictions about when informational demands will produce physiological strain, which structural properties of information streams are most likely to drive that strain, and how individual differences in appraisal and coping shape vulnerability.

The practical implications of the framework are potentially wide-ranging. In workplace contexts, it suggests that interventions should target not only the volume of information but also its structure, pacing, and the sense of control workers have over it. In education, it points to the importance of managing informational demands in ways that support rather than overwhelm allostatic regulation. And in the design of digital environments, it offers a rationale for building systems that respect the recovery needs of their users. The authors emphasize that the framework is intended to be tested, refined, and potentially revised, and that its success will be measured by whether it generates research questions that existing models have not.

Subject of Research: A conceptual review proposing informational stress as a framework connecting information overload to allostatic physiological strain

Article Title: Informational stress in cognitive systems: a review and conceptual synthesis

Article References: Informational stress in cognitive systems: a review and conceptual synthesis. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnetp.2026.1913737

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fnetp.2026.1913737

Keywords: informational stress, information overload, allostatic load, cognitive load, stress physiology, information theory, Frontiers in Network Physiology, Informational, stress, cognitive, systems, review