Resuming after Interruption: Exploring the Roles of Spatial and Goal Memory

Abstract

Interruptions research has generally focused on the factors that make interruptions more or less disruptive to primary task performance, the ways in which people engage the interruption as they disengage from a primary task, and the role of environmental context/cues in primary task resumption. However, little research has focused on investigating the processes by which a person reorients to and resumes the primary task following an interruption. This research explores the potential roles of spatial location and goal memory in the process of resumption. The experiment reported uses a new paradigm in which, following an interruption, a person can be returned to a different task and/or a different location. We found that both goal memory and spatial memory play a role in resuming the primary task following an interruption. However, there is still not a clear picture of how the two interact, and it may be that individual differences play an important role in how people deal with interruptions.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altmann

E. M.

Trafton

J. G.

(2002). Memory for goals: An activation-based model. Cognitive Science, 26, 39–83.

Anderson

J. R.

Lebiere

(Eds.). (1998). The atomic components of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bailey

B. P.

Konstan

J. A.

Carlis

J. V.

(2000). Measuring the effects of interruptions on task performance in the user interface. Paper presented at the IEEE Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 2000 (SMC 2000).

Balota

D. A.

Cortese

M. J.

Pilotti

(1999). Item-level analyses of lexical decision performance: Results from a mega-study (Abstract). Paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles, CA.

Cades

D. M.

(2007). Do the participants matter? Measuring individual differences over and above experimental manipulations. Paper presented at the 13th Biennial meeting of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences, Giessen, Germany.

Cades

D. M.

Kidd

D. G.

McKnight

P. E.

(2008). Where is the real-world variance? A generalizability theory approach to understanding interruptions in naturalistic environments (Abstract). Paper presented at the III European Conference of Methodology, Oviedo, Spain.

Cades

D. M.

Ratwani

R. M.

Boehm-Davis

D. A.

Trafton

J. G.

(2008). Resuming from interruptions: Searching for trends across multiple environments (Abstract). Paper presented at the Cognitive Science, Washington, DC.

Eyrolle

Cellier

J.-M.

(2000). The effects of interruptions in work activity: Field and laboratory results. Applied Ergonomics, 31(5), 537–543.

Gillie

Broadbent

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

10.

Holt

R. W.

Hansberger

J. T.

Chong

R. S.

Boehm-Davis

D. A.

(2002). Modeling aviation crew interaction using a cognitive architecture (Abstract). Paper presented at the Cognitive Science Annual Meeting, Fairfax, VA.

11.

Kane

M. J.

Engle

R. W.

(2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 637–671.

12.

Kane

M. J.

Engle

R. W.

(2003). Working memory capacity and the control of attention: The contribution of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70.

13.

Kidd

D. G.

(2007). Tracking true differences: Enhancing the generalizability of a simple cognitive task using state and trait individual differences. Paper presented at the 13th Biennial Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences, Giessen, Germany.

14.

Kidd

D. G.

Cades

D. M.

McKnight

P. E.

(2008). Genrealizability theory in laboratory interruptions research: Estimating variance to improve future research (Abstract), Paper presented at the III European Conference of Methodology, Oviedo, Spain.

15.

Ratwani

R. M.

Trafton

J. G.

(2008). Spatial memory guides task resumption. Visual Cognition, 16(8), 1001–1010.

16.

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.

17.

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 retrospecitve rehearsal. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 58(5), 583–603.

18.

Ziljstra

F. R. H.

Roe

R. A.

Leonora

A. B.

Krediet

(1999). Temporal factors in mental work: Effects of interrupted activities. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(2), 164–185.