Close
today i learned (til)

Pomodoro: A Mental Stimulant

May 2, 2024

As the semester ends, and finals week begins, the amount of anxiety and stress that suddenly seems to double down on everyone on campus begins as well. The buzz of campus life that was there before, dies down to frowns and frustrations, as everyone starts preparing for exam season and struggles over not understanding the materials at hand. It seems that in the time that we are the most stressed and overworked, we will do just about anything to procrastinate the task at hand. Whether that be studying, working on a final paper, or completing a group project, all of our thoughts wander on the various ways that we can procrastinate.  

This time, one of my ways of procrastination was to actually research about procrastination. Procrastination is the action of delaying or postponing work that could have been done at an earlier time. It primarily stems from the behavioral phenomenon called “time inconsistency” which states that there are two versions of ourselves, the present self, and the future self. Our present self values the time that we have and wants to spend that time treating ourselves, while our future self wants to be the one who has accomplished all the goals and tasks at hand and is on top of things. Most of the time, the wants of our present self win despite having good intentions of doing the work, we procrastinate and waste the time on our hands. This newfound knowledge led to more research about anti-procrastination and productivity techniques.  There were a lot of techniques that were learned from researching, some of these include the Kanban Method, the Eisenhower Matrix, and the Eat the Frog method. All of these productivity techniques focused on time management and dividing up the tasks at hand. However, out of the many ones that were researched, there was one method that stood out the most compared to others, which was the Pomodoro technique.

Pomodoro Timer Cycles ” Image Credit: Clockwise


The Pomodoro Technique stands out as the simplest and most effective method for managing time and improving focus. It was developed by Francesco Circle in the late 1980s, and it is a method that is used by most people, especially college students, today. The Pomodoro Technique revolves around the concept of breaking work into short and focused intervals with small breaks in between. First, you choose a task to work on. Set a time for 25 minutes and exclusively focus on the chosen task, after those 25 minutes, take a 5-minute break, and repeat the process over and over again. After completing four cycles of work and a break, take a longer break for around 15 to 30 minutes and then repeat the cycle again. 

There are different factors that make the Pomodoro Technique so effective, but the two that are most utilized are the force focus and the Zeigarnik Effect.  The first factor is called the force focus technique. This technique involves breaking the task at hand into small, short manageable intervals and encourages a deep focus on the task. The brain can only work for a limited amount of time before needing a mental break. By utilizing the Pomodoro Technique, it provides short structural intervals and forces the brain to work for those 25 minutes without taking a break.  

Another factor as to why the Pomodoro Technique is effective is because it utilizes the Zeigarnik Effect, which is a psychological phenomenon that suggests that people remember uncompleted or interrupted tasks better than completed ones. So, when a task is interrupted with a short or long break, it creates a mental loop in the mind, leading to a sense of urgency to complete the task at hand. So, right after your break ends, it ensures you go back to the task at hand. The Zegarnik Effect increases motivation and focus in a person, showcasing its effectiveness. This also fosters productivity and effective use of time management, leading to the Pomodoro Technique’s success

As the semester comes to a close and the pressure mounts, the Pomodoro Technique serves as a mental stimulant and emerges as a powerful tool in combating procrastination and changing productivity. The structured approach that the Pomorodo technique utilizes, capitalizes the brain’s natural ability to focus for limited periods and enforces concentration on the task at hand. By embracing this method, students can navigate their challenges and achieve their goals without being defeated due to procrastination. 

References:

Amit, A. J., Shankararam, S. G., Pradeep, P., Perumalraja, R., & Kamalesh, S. (2021, May). Framework for preventing procrastination and increasing productivity. In 2021 3rd International Conference on Signal Processing and Communication (ICPSC) (pp. 228-232). IEEE. 

Clear, J. (2019). Procrastination: A Scientific Guide on How to Stop Procrastinating. jamesclear. com/procrastination>. Acesso em, 12. 

Kachigan, M. (2022, January 4). Pomodoro Technique & productivity – method that yields big results. Official Teamly Blog – Official Teamly Blog – Your Project Management Resource. https://www.teamly.com/blog/pomodoro-technique-to-maximize-productivity/ 

Pomodoro technique: A simple timer improves productivity: Clockwise. RSS. (n.d.). https://www.getclockwise.com/blog/pomodoro-technique 

Seifert, C. M., & Patalano, A. L. (1991). Memory for incomplete tasks: A re-examination of the Zeigarnik effect.

0Likes
About Author

Student at Georgia Tech, studying Computer Science

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Tactile Trivia: A Innovative Activity to Engage People with the Sciences
today i learned (til)
Fast Fashion vs Environment
today i learned (til)
Sharing the Magic of Science Even In the Dark
today i learned (til), vintage science
LSD and Scientific Advancement

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.