To determine whether top-view and side-view camera angles, which putatively impose different cognitive demands, differentially affect the resumption lag in a visual-motor task relevant to laparoscopic surgery.
Background:
Prior research showed that the time to resume a primary task after performing an interrupting task (resumption lag) increases with increases in the subjective workload of the primary task. Camera views used in laparoscopic surgery provide different views of the anatomy and have different cognitive costs and associated levels of workload.
Method:
Participants completed a peg transfer task while interrupted with a mental rotation task of different durations and angles of stimulus rotation.
Results:
Participants required significantly more time to resume the peg transfer task when using a side view than a top view and when interrupted for a longer duration. Participants’ ratings of subjective workload were consistent with these patterns of performance data; the side view resulted in longer resumption lags and was rated as greater in mental demand. Additionally, the time needed to resume the peg transfer task decreased across trials for both views.
Conclusion:
More time is required to resume an interrupted visual-motor task when it is more cognitively demanding than when it is less cognitively demanding possibly due to needing more time to learn the visual-motor mapping of the task higher in cognitive demand.
Application:
Training for laparoscopic surgery should include interruptions to allow surgeons to practice resuming a surgery-related task after an interruption and consequently shorten the time needed to resume the surgery-related task.
AltmannE. M.TraftonJ. G. (2002). Memory for goals: An activation-based model. Cognitive Science, 26(1), 39–83.
2.
AltmannE. M.TraftonJ. G. (2004). Task interruption: Resumption lag and the role of cues. Paper presented at the Conference of Cognitive Science Society, Chicago, IL.
3.
AltmannE. M.TraftonJ. G.HambrickD. Z. (2014). Momentary interruptions can derail the train of thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 215–226.
4.
AnnettJ.AnnettM.HudsonP. T. W.TurnerA. (1979). The control of movement in the preferred and non-preferred hands. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31(4), 641–652.
5.
BiondiF.StrayerD. L.RossiR.GastaldiM.MulattiC. (2017). Advanced driver assistance systems: Using multimodal redundant warnings to enhance road safety. Applied Ergonomics, 58, 238–244.
6.
BrunoN.CuttingJ. E. (1988). Minimodularity and the perception of layout. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117(2), 161–170.
7.
CadesD. M.WernerN.Boehm-DavisD. A.TraftonJ. G.MonkC. A. (2008). Dealing with interruptions can be complex, but does interruption complexity matter: A mental resources approach to quantifying disruptions. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 52nd Annual Meeting (pp. 398–402). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
8.
ChanA. C. W.ChungS. C. S.YimA. P. C.LauJ. Y. W.NgE. K. W.LiA. K. C. (1997). Comparison of two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic surgery. Surgical Endoscopy, 11, 438–440.
9.
ChisholmC. D.CollisonE. K.NelsonD. R.CordellW. H. (2000). Emergency department workplace interruptions: Are emergency physicians “interrupt-driven” and “multitasking”?Academic Emergency Medicine, 7, 1239–1243.
10.
ChungJ. Y.SackierJ. M. (1998). A method of objectively evaluating improvements in laparoscopic skills. Surgical Endoscopy, 12(9), 1111–1116.
11.
CooperL. A.ShepardR. N. (1973). Chronometric studies of the rotation of mental images. In ChaseW. G. (Ed.), Visual Information Processing (pp. 72–121). Oxford, England: Academic Press.
12.
DeLuciaP. R.GriswoldJ. A. (2011). Effects of camera arrangement on perceptual-motor performance in minimally invasive surgery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 210–232.
13.
DeLuciaP.KaiserM.BushJ.MeyerL.SweetB. (2003). Information integration in judgements of time to contact. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 56(7), 1165–1189.
14.
FriedG. M.FeldmanL. S.VassiliouM. C.FraserS. A.StanbridgeD.GhitulescuG.AndrewC. G. (2004). Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Annals of Surgery, 240(3), 518–528.
15.
GillespieB. M.ChaboyerW.FairweatherN. (2012). Interruptions and miscommunications in surgery: An observational study. AORN Journal, 95, 576–590.
16.
GrundgeigerT.SandersonP.MacDougallH. G.VenkateshB. (2010). Interruption management in the intensive care unit: Predicting resumption times and assessing distributed support. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(4), 317–334.
17.
HartS. G. (2006). NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (pp. 904–908). Santa Monica: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
18.
HodgettsH. M.JonesD. M. (2006). Interruption of the Tower of London task: Support for a goal-activation approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 103–115.
19.
HoldenJ. G.FlachJ. M.DonchinY. (1999). Perceptual-motor coordination in an endoscopic surgery simulation. Surgical Endoscopy, 13, 127–132.
20.
IqbalS. T.BaileyB. P. (2005, April). Investigating the effectiveness of mental workload as a predictor of opportune moments for interruption. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, OR.
21.
JonesW. E. (2016). Assessing the transfer of interruption handling skill to novel task contexts (Doctoral dissertation). Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University.
22.
KleinM. I.DeLuciaP. R.OlmsteadR. (2013). The impact of visual scanning in the laparoscopic environment after engaging in strain coping. Human Factors, 55(3), 509–519.
23.
KleinM. I.WarmJ. S.RileyM. A.MatthewsG.GaitondeK.DonovanJ. F. (2008). Perceptual distortions produce multidimensional stress profiles in novice users of an endoscopic surgery simulator. Human Factors, 50(2), 291–300.
24.
KleinM. I.WheelerN. J.CraigC. (2015). Sideways camera rotations of 90° and 135° result in poorer performance of laparoscopic tasks for novices. Human Factors, 57(2), 246–261.
25.
MagrabiF.LiS. Y.DayR. O.CoieraE. (2010). Errors and electronic prescribing: A controlled laboratory study to examine task complexity and interruption effects. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 17(5), 575–583.
26.
McDonaldJ.OrlickT.LettsM. (1995). Mental readiness in surgeons and its links to performance excellence in surgery. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, 15, 691–697.
27.
MonkC. A.TraftonJ. G.Boehm-DavisD. A. (2008). The effect of interruption duration and demand on resuming suspended goals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 299–313.
28.
OldfieldR. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.
29.
PankokC.ZahabiM.ZhangW.ChoiI.LiaoY. F.NamC. S.KaberD. (2017). The effects of interruption similarity and complexity on performance in a simulated visual-manual assembly operation. Applied Ergonomics, 59, 94–103.
30.
RatwaniR. M.TraftonJ. G.MyersC. (2006, October). Helpful or harmful? Examining the effects of interruptions on task performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (pp. 372–375). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
31.
SuttonE.YoussefY.MeenaghanN.GodinezC.XiaoY.LeeT.DexterD.ParkA. (2010). Gaze disruptions experienced by the laparoscopic operating surgeon. Surgical Endoscopy, 24, 1240–1244.
32.
TendrickF.CavusogluM. C. (1997, October). Human-machine interfaces for minimally invasive surgery. In Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 1997. Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference of the IEEE, 6, 2771–2776.
33.
TraftonJ. G.AltmannE. M.BrockD. P.MintzF. 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.
34.
WagnerC. R.HoweR. D. (2007). Force feedback benefit depends on experience in multiple degree of freedom robotic surgery task. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 23(6), 1235–1240.
35.
WickensC. D. (1999). Frames of reference for navigation. In GopherD.KoriatA. (Eds.), Attention and performance. Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 113–144). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
36.
WickensC. D.HollandsJ. G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
37.
WickensC. D.LiangC. C.PrevettT.OlmosO. (1996). Electronic maps for terminal area navigation: Effects of frame of reference and dimensionality. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 6(3), 241–271.
