Objective: We examined the effect of interruption modality (visual or auditory) on primary task (visual) resumption to determine which modality was the least disruptive.
Background: Theories examining interruption modality have focused on specific periods of the interruption timeline. Preemption theory has focused on the switch from the primary task to the interrupting task. Multiple resource theory has focused on interrupting tasks that are to be performed concurrently with the primary task. Our focus was on examining how interruption modality influences task resumption. We leverage the memory-for-goals theory, which suggests that maintaining an associative link between environmental cues and the suspended primary task goal is important for resumption.
Method: Three interruption modality conditions were examined: auditory interruption with the primary task visible, auditory interruption with a blank screen occluding the primary task, and a visual interruption occluding the primary task. Reaction time and eye movement data were collected.
Results: The auditory condition with the primary task visible was the least disruptive. Eye movement data suggest that participants in this condition were actively maintaining an associative link between relevant environmental cues on the primary task interface and the suspended primary task goal during the interruption.
Conclusion: These data suggest that maintaining cue association is the important factor for reducing the disruptiveness of interruptions, not interruption modality.
Application: Interruption-prone computing environments should be designed to allow for the user to have access to relevant primary task cues during an interruption to minimize disruptiveness.
Altmann, E.M., & Trafton, J.G. ( 2002). Memory for goals: An activation-based model. Cognitive Science, 26, 39-83.
2.
Altmann, E.M., & Trafton, J.G. ( 2004). Task interruption: Resumption lag and the role of cues . In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.) In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 43-48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
Altmann, E.M., & Trafton, J.G. ( 2007). Timecourse of recovery from task interruption: Data and a model. Psychonomics Bulletin and Review, 14(6), 1079-1084.
4.
Andrews, A.E., Ratwani, R.M., & Trafton, J.G. ( 2009). Recovering from interruptions: Does alert type matter? In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 409-413). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
5.
Bailey, B.P., & Iqbal, S.T. ( 2008). Understanding changes in mental workload during execution of goal-directed tasks and its application for interruption management. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 14(4), 1-28.
6.
Gonzalez, V., & Mark, G. ( 2004). Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness: Managing multiple working spheres. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI’04 (pp. 113-120). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
7.
Gray, W.D. ( 2004). Errors in interactive behavior. In W. S. Bainbridge (Ed.), Berkshire encyclopedia of human-computer interaction: When science fiction becomes science fact (pp. 230-235). Great Barrington, MA: Berkshire.
8.
Hazeltine, E., & Ruthruff, E. ( 2006). Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck . Psychological Research, 70(6), 504-513.
9.
Helleberg, J., & Wickens, C.D. ( 2002). Effects of data link modality and display redundancy on pilot performance: An attentional perspective. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 13(3), 189-210.
10.
Helleberg, J., Wickens, C.D., & Goh, J. ( 2003). Traffic and data link displays: Auditory? Visual? Or redundant? A visual scanning analysis. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Dayton, OH: Wright State University Press. Retrieved from http://www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/isap03/helwicgoh.pdf
11.
Ho, C.-Y., Nikolic, M.I., & Sarter, N.B. ( 2001). Multimodal information presentation in support of timesharing and effective interruption management. In Proceedings of the 20th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (pp. 5D2/1-5D2/8). Los Alamitos, CA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
12.
Ho, C.-Y., Nikolic, M.I., Waters, M.J., & Sarter, N.B. ( 2004). Not now! Supporting interruption management by indicating the modality and urgency of pending tasks, Human Factors, 46, 399-409.
13.
Hodgetts, H.M., & Jones, D.M. ( 2006a). Contextual cues aid recovery from interruption: The role of associative activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 32, 1120-1132.
14.
Hodgetts, H.M., & Jones, D.M. ( 2006b). Interruption of the Tower of London task: Support for a goal activation approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 103-115.
15.
Horrey, W.J., & Wickens, C.D. ( 2004). Driving and side task performance: The effects of display clutter, separation, and modality. Human Factors, 46, 611-624.
16.
Iani, C., & Wickens, C.D. ( 2007). Factors affecting task management in aviation. Human Factors, 49, 16-24.
17.
Latorella, K.A. ( 1998). Effects of modality on interrupted flight deck performance: Implications for data link. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 87-91). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
18.
Li, S.Y.W., Blandford, A., Cairns, P., & Young, R. ( 2008). The effect of interruptions on postcompletion and other procedural errors: An account based on the activation-based goal memory model . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(4), 314-328.
19.
Liu, Y., & Wickens, C.D. ( 1992). Visual scanning with or without spatial uncertainty and divided and selective attention. Acta Psychologica, 79, 131-153.
20.
McFarlane, D. ( 2002). Comparison of four primary methods for coordinating the interruption of people in human-computer interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 17(1), 63-139.
21.
Monk, C.A., Boehm-Davis, D.A., & Trafton, J.G. ( 2004). Recovering from interruptions: Implications for driver distraction research. Human Factors, 46, 650-663.
22.
Monk, C.A., Trafton, J.G., & Boehm-Davis, D.A. (2008). The effect of interruption duration and demand on resuming suspended goals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 299-313.
23.
Ratwani, R.M., Andrews, A.E., McCurry, M., Trafton, J.G., & Peterson, M.S. (2007). Using peripheral processing and spatial memory to facilitate task resumption. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 224-248). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Sarno, K.J., & Wickens, C.D. ( 1995). The role of multiple resources in predicting time-sharing efficiency: An evaluation of three workload models in a multiple task setting . International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5(1), 107-130.
26.
Spence, C. ( 2001). Crossmodal attentional capture: A controversy resolved ? Advances in Psychology, 133, 231-262.
27.
Tan, D.S., Gergle, D., Scupelli, P., & Pausch, R. ( 2006). Physically large displays improve performance on spatial tasks. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 13(1), 71-99.
28.
Trafton, J.G., Altmann, E., & Brock, D. ( 2005). Huh, what was I doing? How people use environmental cues after an interruption. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 468-472). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society .
29.
Trafton, J.G., Altmann, E.M., Brock, D.P., & Mintz, F.E. ( 2003). Preparing to resume an interrupted task: Effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 583-603.
30.
Wickens, C.D. ( 1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63-101). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
31.
Wickens, C.D. ( 2002). Multiple resources and performance predictions. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 159-177.
32.
Wickens, C.D. ( 2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors, 50, 449-455.
33.
Wickens, C.D., & Colcombe, A. ( 2007). Dual-task performance consequences of imperfect alerting associated with a cockpit display of traffic information. Human Factors, 49, 839-850.
34.
Wickens, C.D., Dixon, S., & Seppelt, B. ( 2005). Auditory preemption versus multiple resources: Who wins in interruption management? In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 463-467). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society .
35.
Wickens, C.D., & Liu, Y. ( 1988). Codes and modalities in multiple resources: A success and a qualification. Human Factors, 30, 599-616.
