Abstract
Confusion is the state of being unable to think with the usual clarity or to work out how to proceed, which cognitive psychology studies in two registers that rarely meet. In the first, confusion is an epistemic emotion: the feeling that arises at a cognitive impasse, when new information cannot be reconciled with existing knowledge, and which, when it is resolved, can deepen learning. In the second, confusion is a clinical state: an acute disturbance of attention, orientation, and coherent thought that MeSH files as a neurobehavioral manifestation and whose severe form is delirium. This article sets out both — confusion in the affect dynamics of complex learning, the cognitive-disequilibrium account of why it arises, the Confusion Assessment Method and Mini-Mental State Examination, and the pathophysiology of acute brain failure — with three interactive demonstrations.
Keywords: confusion, epistemic emotion, delirium
Confusion is one of those words whose everyday looseness hides two quite different things. A student wrestling with a proof they cannot follow is confused; so is an elderly patient who, after an operation, no longer knows the day, the place, or why strangers keep asking them questions. Both have lost the thread, but the first confusion is a passing feature of thinking hard at the edge of what one understands, and may even be a sign that real learning is underway, while the second is a medical sign that the brain is not working as it should. Cognitive psychology has something to say about each, and the two literatures — one on emotion and learning, one on the acute confusional state — turn out to illuminate one another more than their separation would suggest.
Key Takeaways
- Confusion is an epistemic emotion, not merely a lack of knowledge. It is the affective signal of a cognitive impasse, arising when incoming information cannot be squared with existing understanding, and it is distinct from related epistemic states such as surprise and curiosity (Vogl et al., 2020; Pekrun, 2006). - Confusion can be beneficial for learning — if it is resolved. Experimentally induced confusion that learners are helped to work through improves deep comprehension, while confusion left unresolved does not; the benefit is in the resolution, not the discomfort (D'Mello et al., 2014; D'Mello & Graesser, 2012). - In medicine, confusion names an acute disturbance of attention and thought. The clinical confusional state — disordered attention, orientation, and coherence of thinking — is the behavioural face of acute brain dysfunction, and its severe form is delirium (Engel & Romano, 1959; Inouye, 2006). - It became measurable through structured instruments. The Confusion Assessment Method operationalised the confusional state as a short logical algorithm, and the Mini-Mental State Examination grades the global cognitive impairment that underlies it (Inouye et al., 1990; Folstein et al., 1975). - Its clinical basis is acute brain failure. The current synthesis treats the acute confusional state as the output of neuroinflammation, neurotransmitter imbalance, and network disconnection — a brain failing acutely rather than a single lesion (Maldonado, 2017; Wilson et al., 2020).
What Confusion Is
Confusion is a disturbance of the normal order of thinking: the sense that one cannot make the pieces fit, cannot hold the situation together, or cannot decide how to go on. Psychology approaches it from two directions. From the side of emotion and cognition, confusion is the feeling that accompanies a cognitive impasse — a moment when the mind registers that its current understanding is inadequate to the task at hand. From the side of clinical neuroscience, confusion is an observable state of disordered attention, orientation, and coherent thought, a sign that the brain's capacity to maintain organised awareness has been disturbed (Engel & Romano, 1959).
The two senses are not as far apart as they first appear. Both describe a failure of the ordinary machinery by which we keep track of where we are and what we are doing — in the one case a local, transient failure provoked by a hard problem, in the other a global, pathological failure of the systems that sustain coherent cognition. MeSH classifies Confusion as a neurobehavioral manifestation, grouping it with the observable behavioural signs of nervous-system function, and places the acute confusional state's severe form, delirium, directly beneath it. That taxonomy reflects the clinical reading; the cognitive-psychological reading, in which confusion is an emotion that can serve learning, sits alongside it rather than under it.
What unites the two is the element of disequilibrium. In both the learner and the patient, confusion marks a gap between the demands of the moment and the mind's current ability to meet them. The difference is what the gap signifies: in learning, a surmountable challenge that effortful thought may close; in illness, a disturbance of the underlying substrate that thought alone cannot repair.
Types of Confusion
MeSH places Confusion among the neurobehavioral manifestations — the observable behavioural signs of nervous-system function — and gives it one narrower descriptor, a single more specific kind of confusional state filed beneath it. Naming that subtype matters because the word confusion is used so loosely that its one formally recognised severe form can be lost among the colloquial senses.
The division below is a MeSH indexing classification, not a claim that these are the only ways to be confused; it is one way of organising the concept for retrieval, and like any classification it draws sharper lines than the phenomenon itself. In particular, the clinically indexed subtype sits at the severe end of a spectrum whose milder reaches — the ordinary confusion of a hard problem — MeSH does not separately index at all.
Table 1
The narrower MeSH descriptor filed under Confusion
| Subtype | What it is |
|---|---|
| Delirium | An acute, fluctuating disturbance of attention and awareness with disorganised thinking — the severe, medically urgent form of the acute confusional state, often with an identifiable physiological cause. |
Beyond this single indexed subtype, it is useful to hold in mind a broader, informal division that the rest of this article uses: between epistemic confusion — the transient feeling of a cognitive impasse during thinking and learning — and the clinical confusional state — the pathological disturbance of attention and thought that delirium exemplifies. These are orthogonal to the MeSH tree: the first is a normal emotion that MeSH does not index as a disorder at all, the second the indexed clinical sign. Keeping them apart, while seeing what they share, is the organising idea of what follows.
Confusion as an Epistemic Emotion
In the psychology of learning, confusion belongs to a family called the epistemic emotions — emotions that are about knowledge and the process of acquiring it, as opposed to emotions about outcomes or other people. Surprise, curiosity, confusion, and the feeling of knowing are its members: each is triggered not by reward or threat but by the relation between what one is learning and what one already knows (Vogl et al., 2020).
The theoretical frame for this is Reinhard Pekrun's control-value theory of achievement emotions, which holds that emotions in learning arise from appraisals along two dimensions: how much control the learner feels over the activity and its outcome, and how much value they place on it. Confusion, on this account, is what is felt when a learner who values a task and expects to be able to do it encounters something that defeats their current understanding — a drop in perceived control over material that still matters. It is an emotion generated by an appraisal, not a bare cognitive state, which is why it carries the characteristic affective tone of unease and effortful searching (Pekrun, 2006).
Crucially, confusion is distinct from its epistemic neighbours, and recent work has pulled them apart empirically. Surprise is the brief response to an expectation violated; curiosity is the appetitive pull toward new information; confusion is the more uncomfortable sense of being unable to reconcile information with one's existing knowledge, of not knowing how to proceed. In studies that manipulate the information learners encounter, these three emotions have different antecedents and different consequences for how people then explore and learn, which is the strongest evidence that confusion is its own appraisal-driven state rather than a blend of the others (Vogl et al., 2020).
Cognitive Disequilibrium and Productive Confusion
Why does confusion arise in learning, and what does it do? The most developed answer comes from the affect dynamics model of complex learning developed by Sidney D'Mello and Arthur Graesser, which tracks the emotions that learners move through as they work on genuinely difficult material. At the centre of that model is cognitive disequilibrium: the state that results when a learner hits an impasse — a contradiction, an anomaly, a gap — that their current mental model cannot absorb (D'Mello & Graesser, 2012).
Cognitive disequilibrium is the trigger for confusion, and confusion in turn is a decision point. The model describes characteristic transitions among a small set of states: a learner in engagement or flow who meets an impasse is thrown into confusion; from confusion, one of two things happens. If the learner succeeds in resolving the impasse — restoring equilibrium by revising their understanding — they return to productive engagement, and the effortful work of resolution is exactly the deep processing that builds durable knowledge. If the impasse is not resolved, confusion curdles into frustration, and persistent frustration into boredom and disengagement. The same emotion thus sits on the path to learning and on the path to giving up; which path it takes depends on whether the disequilibrium is resolved (D'Mello & Graesser, 2012).
This yields the striking and much-cited claim that confusion can be beneficial for learning. In a series of experiments, D'Mello, Blair Lehman, Reinhard Pekrun, and Arthur Graesser deliberately induced confusion — for instance by presenting learners with contradictory information or flawed arguments — and found that learners who were made confused, and then helped to work through it, showed better deep learning and transfer than learners who were never confused at all. The benefit was specific to resolved confusion: when the induced confusion was not scaffolded to resolution, it produced no such gain. Confusion, in other words, is not good or bad in itself; it is good when it marks a genuine impasse that the learner is then enabled to overcome (D'Mello et al., 2014).
Move a learner through the affect dynamics
In the affect-dynamics model, a learner in engagement who meets an impasse is thrown into confusion — the state of cognitive disequilibrium. From there the path forks: resolving the impasse restores engagement and builds durable knowledge, while failing to resolve it leads to frustration and, if it persists, boredom. Click the available actions and watch the same emotion route toward learning or toward giving up.
Engagement. Engaged and in flow — the productive state learning returns to.
Impasses resolved: 0 over 0 transitions. Each resolved impasse is the deep processing that builds knowledge (after D'Mello & Graesser, 2012).
The practical implication, now built into the design of intelligent tutoring systems such as the AutoTutor family, is that confusion should be neither avoided nor maximised but managed: induced where it signals a productive impasse, and then supported toward resolution, so that the learner reaps the deep processing without tipping into frustration. The demonstration above lets the reader move a learner through the affect-dynamics states and see how resolving or failing to resolve an impasse routes them toward learning or toward disengagement.
Assessing the Confusional State
In medicine the problem is the reverse of the classroom's: not how to induce confusion usefully but how to detect it reliably, because a new confusional state is often the first and sometimes the only sign of serious acute illness. For most of its history clinical confusion could only be described, not measured, which made it easy to miss. Two instruments changed that.
The Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), published by Sharon Inouye and colleagues in 1990, is the most widely used tool for detecting a confusional state at the bedside. It distils the diagnosis into a short logical algorithm over four features: (1) acute onset and fluctuating course, (2) inattention, (3) disorganized thinking, and (4) altered level of consciousness. A confusional state is identified when features 1 and 2 are both present, together with either feature 3 or feature 4. The power of the CAM is in that logic: by requiring the acute, fluctuating course and the inattention that are the core of the syndrome, and then either of the two thinking-and-consciousness disturbances, it captures the confusional state while screening out the many other reasons a patient might seem not themselves (Inouye et al., 1990).
The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), introduced by Marshal Folstein, Susan Folstein, and Paul McHugh in 1975, approaches the problem from the other side, grading the global cognitive impairment that a confusional state produces. It scores orientation, registration, attention and calculation, recall, and language out of a total of 30 points, and a low score flags the disorientation and attentional failure that define the confusional state — though, being a measure of global cognition rather than of acute change, it cannot by itself distinguish an acute confusional state from a chronic dementia (Folstein et al., 1975). Used together, the two instruments do complementary work: the CAM establishes that the disturbance is acute and attentional, the MMSE quantifies how impaired cognition has become.
Apply the Confusion Assessment Method
The CAM distils the diagnosis of a confusional state into one logical rule over four features. A state is identified when features 1 and 2 are both present, together with either feature 3 or feature 4. Toggle each feature and watch the rule resolve.
Both core features hold and at least one of thinking or consciousness is disturbed: screens positive for a confusional state.
Requiring the acute course and inattention, then either thinking or consciousness, is what lets the rule catch the syndrome while screening out other reasons a patient seems "not themselves" (after Inouye et al., 1990).
The demonstration above implements the CAM algorithm directly: the reader can toggle each of the four features and watch the diagnostic logic — features 1 and 2, plus either 3 or 4 — resolve to a positive or negative verdict, making vivid how a short, well-chosen rule turns a vague clinical impression into a reproducible judgement.
Worked Example
How do the two instruments combine on a single patient? Consider an eighty-year-old admitted after a hip fracture who, on the second hospital day, becomes muddled. The nurse applies the CAM. Feature 1, acute onset and fluctuating course: the family confirms the patient was sharp at home and the muddle came on over hours and waxes and wanes — present. Feature 2, inattention: asked to recite the months backward, the patient loses track after three — present. Feature 3, disorganized thinking: the patient's answers are rambling and illogical — present. Feature 4, altered level of consciousness: the patient is alert, not drowsy or stuporous — absent.
The CAM rule is features 1 and 2, and (3 or 4). Substituting: (present and present) and (present or absent) = true and (true or false) = true and true = positive. The patient screens positive for a confusional state on three of four features, and would do so even without feature 3, because feature 4 need not also be present — the or requires only one of the two.
To grade the impairment, the team administers the MMSE. The patient scores orientation 6 of 10 (knows the year and season but not the date, day, or hospital), registration 3 of 3, attention and calculation 2 of 5, recall 1 of 3, and language 7 of 9. The total is the simple sum:
6 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 7 = 19 out of 30.
Against the conventional cut-off of 24, a score of 19 is 24 − 19 = 5 points below the threshold, indicating cognitive impairment; in proportional terms the patient has retained 19 / 30 = 0.63 of full function. The two results now say complementary things: the CAM establishes that this is an acute, attentional disturbance — a confusional state, not a long-standing dementia — while the MMSE puts a number on how far cognition has fallen. The combination points to delirium and prompts a search for its physiological cause, which is the subject of the mechanisms section below.
The Acute Confusional State
The clinical tradition that gave us these instruments begins with a classic account. In 1959 George Engel and John Romano argued that the acute confusional state — what we now call delirium — is a syndrome of cerebral insufficiency: a general disturbance of the metabolism and functional integrity of the brain, expressed as a disorder of attention, awareness, and coherent thought, and accompanied by a characteristic slowing of the EEG that tracks the severity of the confusion. Their insight was that the confusional state is not a disease in itself but the brain's stereotyped behavioural response to a wide range of insults — infection, drugs, metabolic derangement, organ failure — much as a fever is a stereotyped response to many causes (Engel & Romano, 1959).
That framing still organises clinical thinking. The acute confusional state is the final common path by which a failing body announces itself in the mind: the disturbance is in the brain, but the cause is very often elsewhere, and finding it is the clinical task. Delirium — the confusional state's severe, medically urgent form and the one narrower descriptor MeSH files under Confusion — is now understood as common, serious, and frequently missed, especially in older hospitalised patients, where it predicts longer stays, worse outcomes, and lasting cognitive decline (Inouye, 2006; Marcantonio, 2017).
The modern authoritative synthesis treats delirium as a disorder of acute, global brain dysfunction with identifiable risk factors and precipitants, detectable with the CAM and its descendants, and — importantly — substantially preventable through multicomponent, nonpharmacological care that addresses the orientation, sleep, mobility, and sensory inputs on which coherent cognition depends (Wilson et al., 2020; Oh et al., 2017).
What Happens in the Brain
If the acute confusional state is the brain's stereotyped response to insult, what is going wrong inside it? No single lesion produces confusion; rather, the state reflects a distributed failure of the networks that sustain organised attention and awareness. The current integrative account, synthesised by José Maldonado, frames delirium as acute brain failure arising from several interacting mechanisms rather than one (Maldonado, 2017).
Three strands run through that account. The first is neuroinflammation: systemic illness releases inflammatory mediators that cross into the brain and disrupt neuronal function, which helps explain why infection and surgery so reliably precipitate confusion. The second is neurotransmitter imbalance, classically a relative deficit of acetylcholine and an excess of dopamine, disturbing the chemical signalling on which attention and arousal depend. The third is network disconnection: functional uncoupling of the large-scale brain networks whose coordinated activity underlies coherent consciousness, so that the parts of the system no longer work in concert (Maldonado, 2017; Wilson et al., 2020).
Figure 1
Cognitive disequilibrium as the common core of confusion
The practical corollary is that treatment of the confusional state is rarely a matter of acting on the brain directly; it is a matter of finding and correcting the precipitating insult — the infection, the offending drug, the metabolic disturbance — and supporting the brain while it recovers. That the same multicomponent care which addresses orientation, sleep, and sensory input both prevents delirium and treats it underscores how much the confusional state is a disturbance of the conditions for coherent cognition rather than of any one neural part (Oh et al., 2017).
Discussion
Confusion is unusual among the states cognitive psychology studies in that it is at once an ordinary emotion and a medical emergency, and the two readings have grown up almost entirely apart. The learning literature treats confusion as a signal to be welcomed and worked through; the clinical literature treats it as a sign to be detected and reversed. Yet both are describing the same underlying situation — a gap between the demands of the moment and the mind's current capacity to meet them — and both turn on whether that gap is resolved (D'Mello et al., 2014; Engel & Romano, 1959).
The histories rhyme in another way too: in each, progress depended on measurement. Clinical confusion resisted study until the CAM turned it into a short algorithm and the MMSE put a number on the impairment, after which its epidemiology, risk factors, and prevention could be established (Inouye et al., 1990; Folstein et al., 1975). Epistemic confusion resisted study until it could be separated from its emotional neighbours and induced under controlled conditions, after which its role in deep learning could be demonstrated rather than assumed (Vogl et al., 2020; D'Mello et al., 2014). In both domains the turn from description to measurement was the turn that made confusion a tractable object.
The open problems are correspondingly shared. On the learning side, the challenge is to manage confusion in real time — to induce it where it is productive and scaffold its resolution before it becomes frustration — which requires detecting a learner's confusion as it happens. On the clinical side, the challenge is a mechanistic account precise enough to guide treatment of a syndrome that is common, dangerous, and still largely managed by addressing its causes rather than itself (Maldonado, 2017; Wilson et al., 2020).
Cognitive and Psychological Implications
Confusion makes vivid a distinction cognitive psychology draws in theory but rarely sees so cleanly: between the contents of thought and the coherence of the system that holds them. In the delirious patient, the raw materials of cognition may be largely intact — the patient can perceive, can speak, can move — yet the system that binds them into oriented, attentive awareness has failed, and the result is a mind that cannot keep track of itself. That is why confusion is a disturbance of attention and consciousness before it is a disturbance of any particular faculty (Engel & Romano, 1959).
The epistemic reading adds a further lesson: that the felt sense of not understanding is not a defect of thinking but a part of its machinery. Confusion is the mind's way of flagging that its model of the situation has broken down and that effortful revision is required — a metacognitive signal, in effect, about the state of one's own understanding. That the same signal, when its underlying cause is pathological rather than pedagogical, becomes the cardinal sign of acute brain failure is a reminder that the emotions of knowing are built on the very systems whose breakdown produces the confusional state. Confusion thus sits instructively among the other disorders of organised action and awareness — a cognitive counterpart, in the register of thought and attention, to the motor derangements of psychomotor agitation and catatonia.
The single thread that ties the two readings together is whether the disequilibrium is resolved, and it is this that determines whether confusion helps or harms. The demonstration below makes the dependency concrete: it traces how the depth of learning rises with confusion that is scaffolded toward resolution and falls away when the same confusion is left unresolved and tips into frustration — the inverted-U at the heart of the productive-confusion hypothesis, and the learning-side mirror of the clinical rule that an unresolved confusional state is the one that persists and harms (D'Mello et al., 2014).
The inverted-U of productive confusion
Induced confusion helps learning only when it is scaffolded to resolution, and then only in moderation: too little leaves no impasse to work through, too much overwhelms. Slide the amount of confusion and toggle whether it is resolved. The navy curve is scaffolded confusion; the brown curve is the same confusion left unresolved. The curves are a schematic illustration of the productive-confusion hypothesis, not measured data.
Confusion 50, resolved: predicted learning depth 100 / 100 — near the productive peak, where a genuine impasse is worked through.
Benefit is specific to confusion that is resolved; unresolved, the same confusion produces no gain (after D'Mello et al., 2014).
Current Directions
Three threads mark the recent work. The first is the fine-grained dissociation of the epistemic emotions: the demonstration that surprise, curiosity, and confusion are genuinely distinct states, with different triggers and different effects on knowledge exploration, has opened the question of how they sequence and interact as learning unfolds, and how a tutoring system might read and respond to each (Vogl et al., 2020). The second is delirium prevention: the recognition that a large fraction of hospital confusional states are preventable has shifted effort toward the multicomponent, nonpharmacological care bundles that reduce incidence, and toward identifying who is most at risk (Oh et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2020). The third is mechanism: the integrative acute-brain-failure framework has set the agenda for linking the systemic insults that precipitate confusion to the network-level disruption that expresses it, in the hope of a model precise enough to guide treatment (Maldonado, 2017). Across all three, the unifying ambition is the one this article has traced — to convert confusion from a state we can only recognise into one we can understand and act on, whether to harness it in a learner or to reverse it in a patient.
Common Misconceptions
- Confusion is always a bad thing to be avoided.
- In learning, not so. Confusion that marks a genuine impasse and is then resolved improves deep comprehension; the benefit lies in working through it, not in avoiding it. It is unresolved confusion that is costly (D'Mello et al., 2014).
- Confusion just means a person does not know enough yet.
- It is more specific than ignorance. Confusion is an epistemic emotion arising when information cannot be reconciled with existing understanding — a signal of a cognitive impasse — and is distinct from the mere absence of knowledge, and from related states such as surprise and curiosity (Vogl et al., 2020).
- A confused patient is just disoriented or forgetful.
- The clinical confusional state is defined by acute, fluctuating inattention and disordered thinking, not by memory loss alone. That is why the Confusion Assessment Method centres on acute onset and inattention rather than on orientation questions by themselves (Inouye et al., 1990).
- Acute confusion in a hospital is an inevitable part of being old and ill.
- A large share of hospital delirium is preventable through multicomponent care that supports orientation, sleep, mobility, and the senses; treating it as inevitable is itself a cause of missed, worsened cases (Oh et al., 2017).
Glossary
- Acute brain failure.
- The integrative view of delirium as a distributed failure of brain function driven by neuroinflammation, neurotransmitter imbalance, and network disconnection.
- Acute confusional state.
- A disturbance of attention, orientation, and coherent thought coming on over hours to days; the clinical face of acute brain dysfunction, whose severe form is delirium.
- Affect dynamics.
- The modelling of how emotions such as engagement, confusion, frustration, and boredom arise and transition into one another during complex learning.
- Cognitive disequilibrium.
- The state produced by an impasse that a learner's current mental model cannot absorb; the trigger for confusion in the affect-dynamics account.
- Cognitive impasse.
- The point at which an existing mental model cannot accommodate new information, so that the learner cannot see how to proceed; the proximate occasion of confusion in learning.
- Confusion Assessment Method (CAM).
- A bedside algorithm identifying a confusional state from acute onset and fluctuating course plus inattention, together with either disorganized thinking or an altered level of consciousness.
- Control-value theory.
- Pekrun's framework holding that achievement emotions, including confusion, arise from appraisals of one's control over an activity and the value placed on it.
- Delirium.
- The acute, fluctuating, medically urgent form of the confusional state; the single narrower descriptor MeSH files under Confusion.
- Disorganized thinking.
- An incoherent, illogical flow of ideas marked by rambling or irrelevant speech and unclear reasoning; the third feature of the Confusion Assessment Method.
- Epistemic emotion.
- An emotion about knowledge and its acquisition — surprise, curiosity, confusion, the feeling of knowing — triggered by the relation between new information and existing understanding.
- Inattention.
- Reduced ability to direct, focus, sustain, and shift attention; a core feature of the clinical confusional state and the second CAM criterion.
- Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).
- A 30-point bedside test of orientation, registration, attention, recall, and language used to grade global cognitive impairment.
- Neurobehavioral manifestation.
- An observable behavioural sign of nervous-system function; the MeSH category under which Confusion is classified.
- Productive confusion.
- Confusion that marks a genuine impasse and is scaffolded to resolution, which improves deep learning; contrasted with unresolved confusion, which does not.
Key Researchers
Sidney D'Mello
(contemporary). Professor in the Institute of Cognitive Science at the University of Colorado Boulder; co-author of the affect-dynamics model of complex learning and of the experimental demonstration that confusion can be beneficial for learning. ORCID - Google Scholar - Faculty
Arthur C. Graesser
(contemporary). Professor of Psychology and the Institute for Intelligent Systems at the University of Memphis; co-developer of AutoTutor and co-author of the complex-learning affect-dynamics work that places confusion at the learning impasse. ORCID - Wikipedia - Google Scholar - Faculty
Sharon K. Inouye
(contemporary). Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Director of the Aging Brain Center at the Marcus Institute for Aging Research; developer of the Confusion Assessment Method, the standard algorithm for detecting a confusional state. Wikipedia - Google Scholar - Faculty
Jose R. Maldonado
(contemporary). The John and Terry Levin Family Professor of Medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine; author of the integrative acute-brain-failure hypothesis of delirium pathophysiology. Faculty
Reinhard Pekrun
(born 1952). Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Munich (LMU) and professorial fellow at the Australian Catholic University; author of the control-value theory of achievement emotions and co-author of the epistemic-emotions work that treats confusion as a distinct appraisal-driven state. Wikipedia - Wikidata - Google Scholar - Faculty
Frequently Asked Questions
What is confusion in psychology?
Confusion is the state of being unable to think clearly or to work out how to proceed. Psychology studies it in two ways. As an emotion of learning, it is the uncomfortable feeling that arises when new information does not fit what a person already knows, signalling that their understanding needs to change. As a clinical sign, it is an acute disturbance of attention and coherent thought that can indicate the brain is not working properly, as happens in delirium (Engel & Romano, 1959; Vogl et al., 2020).
Can being confused actually help learning?
Yes, under the right conditions. Studies that deliberately make learners confused and then help them work through the difficulty find that this improves deep understanding, compared with learners who are never confused. The key is that the confusion must be resolved: confusion that marks a real sticking point and is then worked through aids learning, while confusion left unresolved does not (D'Mello et al., 2014).
How is confusion different from surprise or curiosity?
All three are epistemic emotions, meaning they are about knowledge, but they are distinct. Surprise is the brief reaction to something unexpected; curiosity is the pull toward finding out more; confusion is the more uncomfortable sense of not being able to reconcile information with what one already knows, of not knowing how to go on. Research shows they have different triggers and different effects on how people then explore and learn (Vogl et al., 2020).
What is the Confusion Assessment Method?
The Confusion Assessment Method, or CAM, is a short tool doctors and nurses use to detect a confusional state at the bedside. It checks four features: acute onset with a fluctuating course, inattention, disorganized thinking, and an altered level of consciousness. A confusional state is identified when the first two are present together with either of the last two. It is the most widely used instrument for recognising delirium (Inouye et al., 1990).
Is confusion the same as delirium?
Delirium is the severe, acute, medically urgent form of a confusional state, and in MeSH it is the one narrower category filed under Confusion. Everyday confusion at a hard problem is not delirium. The clinical confusional state and delirium largely overlap in medicine, but confusion as an emotion of learning is a normal, often useful state that is not a disorder at all (Inouye, 2006).
What causes an acute confusional state?
An acute confusional state is usually the brain's response to something going wrong elsewhere in the body: infection, medications, metabolic disturbances, or organ failure. The current understanding is that these insults cause a distributed failure of brain function through inflammation, chemical imbalance, and the uncoupling of brain networks, rather than a single localised injury. Finding and correcting the cause is the main treatment (Maldonado, 2017).
Can acute confusion in hospital be prevented?
To a large extent, yes. Much of the confusion that older patients develop in hospital can be prevented by multicomponent care that keeps them oriented, helps them sleep, keeps them moving, and ensures they have their glasses and hearing aids. The same measures that prevent it also help treat it, which shows how much the confusional state depends on the conditions for clear thinking (Oh et al., 2017).
How is confusion measured in a patient?
Two instruments do complementary work. The Confusion Assessment Method establishes that the disturbance is acute and attentional, identifying a confusional state from its defining features. The Mini-Mental State Examination grades how impaired overall cognition has become, scoring orientation, memory, attention, and language out of 30 points. Together they show both the nature and the depth of the problem (Inouye et al., 1990; Folstein et al., 1975).
References
D'Mello, S., Lehman, B., Pekrun, R., & Graesser, A. (2014). Confusion can be beneficial for learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 153-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.003
D'Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2012). Dynamics of affective states during complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 145-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.001
Engel, G. L., & Romano, J. (1959). Delirium, a syndrome of cerebral insufficiency. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 9(3), 260-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(59)90165-1
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini-mental state: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12(3), 189-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
Inouye, S. K., van Dyck, C. H., Alessi, C. A., Balkin, S., Siegal, A. P., & Horwitz, R. I. (1990). Clarifying confusion: The Confusion Assessment Method. Annals of Internal Medicine, 113(12), 941-948. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-113-12-941
Inouye, S. K. (2006). Delirium in older persons. New England Journal of Medicine, 354(11), 1157-1165. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra052321
Maldonado, J. R. (2017). Delirium pathophysiology: An updated hypothesis of the etiology of acute brain failure. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 33(11), 1428-1457. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.4823
Marcantonio, E. R. (2017). Delirium in hospitalized older adults. New England Journal of Medicine, 377(15), 1456-1466. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp1605501
Oh, E. S., Fong, T. G., Hshieh, T. T., & Inouye, S. K. (2017). Delirium in older persons: Advances in diagnosis and treatment. JAMA, 318(12), 1161-1174. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.12067
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
Vogl, E., Pekrun, R., Murayama, K., & Loderer, K. (2020). Surprised-curious-confused: Epistemic emotions and knowledge exploration. Emotion, 20(4), 625-641. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000578
Wilson, J. E., Mart, M. F., Cunningham, C., Shehabi, Y., Girard, T. D., MacLullich, A. M. J., Slooter, A. J. C., & Ely, E. W. (2020). Delirium. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 6(1), 90. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-020-00223-4