The majority of empirical papers investigating the effect of interruption modality on primary task resumption have been grounded in Multiple Resource theory; this theory stresses the benefits of cross-modal information presentation. Alternatively, Altmann and Trafton's (2002) Memory for Goals theory suggests that maintaining an association between the suspended primary task goal and relevant environmental cues is critical to the task resumption process. Using reaction time and eye movement measures, the theoretical predictions of these two frameworks were empirically examined to determine whether interruption modality influences primary task resumption.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamcyzkP. D.BaileyB. P. (2004). If not now, when?: The effects of interruption at different moments within task execution. In Human Factors in Computing Systems: Proceedings of CHI04 (pp. 271–278. New York: ACM Press.
2.
AltmannE. M.TraftonJ. G. (2002). Memory for goals: An activation-based model. Cognitive Science. 26 (1), 39–83.
3.
AltmannE. M.TraftonJ. G. (2007). Timecourse of Recovery from Task Interruption: Data and a Model. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review.
4.
BrudzinskiM. E.RatwaniR. M.TraftonJ. G. (2007). Goal and Spatial Memory Following Interruption. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of Cognitive Modeling (ICCM).
5.
GonzalezV.MarkG. (2004). Constant, Constant, Multitasking Craziness: Managing Multiple Working Spheres. Proceedings of ACM CHI04, Vienna, Austria.
6.
MonkC. A.Boehm-DavisD. A.TraftonJ. G. (2004). Recovering from interruptions: Implications for driver distraction research, Human Factors, 46, 650–663.
7.
HoC.-Y.NikolicM. I.SarterN. B. (2001) Supporting timesharing and interruption management through multimodal information presentation, in: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting, Vol. 1, Santa Monica: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 341–345.
8.
HoC.-Y.NikolicM. I.WatersM. J.SarterN. B. (2004) Not now Supporting interruption management by indicating the modality and urgency of pending tasks, Human Factors, 46 (3), 399–409.
9.
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.
10.
HodgettsH. M.JonesD. M. (2006). Contextual cues aid recovery from interruption: The role of associative activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 32, 1120–1132.
11.
LatorellaK. 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, Santa Monica: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 87–91.
12.
LiS. Y. W.CoxA. L.BlandfordA.CairnsP.AbelesA. (2006). Further investigations into post-completion error: The effects of interruption position and duration, Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Erlbaum.
13.
OulasvirtaA.SarrliloumaP. (2004). Long-term working memory and interrupting messages in human-computer interaction. Behaviour and Information Technology, 23 (1), 53–64.
14.
RatwaniR. M.AndrewsA. E.McCurryM.TraftonJ. G.PetersonM. S. (2007). Using Peripheral Processing and Spatial Memory to Facilitate Task Resumption. Proceedings of the Fifty-First Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Baltimore, MD.
15.
RatwaniR. M.TraftonJ. G. (2006). Now, Where was I? Examining the Perceptual Processes while Resuming an Interrupted Task. Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Vancouver, Canada.
16.
RatwaniR. M.TraftonJ. G. (under review). Spatial Memory Guides Task Resumption.
17.
WickensC. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In ParasuramanR.DaviesR.Varieties of attention (pp. 63–101. Orlando, FL: Academic.
18.
WickensC. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance predictions. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, (2) 159–177.
