Mitigating Disruptions: Can Resuming an Interrupted Task Be Trained?

Abstract

Research has shown that with practice people improve on most tasks. It has also been made clear that over time interruptions become less disruptive. It is unclear whether the reduction in interruption disruptiveness is due to a general practice effect or specific to the interruption/resumption process. In this experiment, participants performed three sessions of a task with one, two, or three of the sessions containing interruptions. We found that in addition to all participants showing primary task improvement, those with more exposure to interruptions also showed improvement in dealing with the interruptions. Specifically, participants with practice on only the primary task did not show improvement with the interruptions. These results suggest that the mitigations of the disruptions are directly related to people getting better at handling the interruptions.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altmann

E. M.

Trafton

J. G.

(2004). Task interruption: Resumption lab and the role of cues. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

Ballas

J. A.

Kieras

D. E.

Meyer

D. E.

Brock

D. P.

(1999). Cueing of display objects by 3-d audio to reduce automation deficit. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Symposium on Situational Awareness in the Tactical Environment, Patuxent River, MD.

Brock

D. P.

Trafton

J. G.

(1999). Cognitive representation of common ground in user interfaces. Paper presented at the User modeling: Proceedings of the seventh international conference, New York, NY.

Gillie

Broadbent

(1989). What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychological Research, 50, 243–250.

Hess

S. M.

Detweiler

M. C.

(1994). Training to reduce the disruptive effects of interruptions. Paper presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting.

Miyata

Norman

D. A.

(1986). Psychological issues in support of multiple activities. In Draper

D. A. N. a. S. W.

(Ed.), User centered system design (pp. 265–284). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Monk

C. A.

(2004). The effect of frequent versus infrequent interruptions on primary task resumption. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting.

Trafton

J. G.

Altmann

E. M.

Brock

D. P.

(2005). Huh, what was I doing? How people use environmental cues after an interruption. Paper presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Orlando, FL.

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(5), 583–603.

10.

Trafton

J. G.

Trickett

S. B.

(2001). Note-taking as a strategy for self-explanation and problem solving. Human-Computer Studies, 16(1), 1–38.