Operators working in extreme environments are often confronted with task interruptions. These interruptions tend to impair performance, which can represent a threat to public safety. Most of the tools designed to aid task resumption in such dynamic contexts are post-interruption solutions consisting of providing information about missed events once the interruption is over. The goal of the present study is to test whether a pre-interruption solution consisting of warning operators of an impending interruption can also facilitate interruption recovery. We employed a microworld simulating above-water warfare and compared primary task recovery following an interruption that could either be notified (8 s before it takes place) or not. Results revealed enhanced post-interruption decision accuracy and speed when providing foreknowledge of the imminent interruption. These findings suggest that a pre-interruption warning, which has already proven effective in static contexts, can also support interruption recovery in dynamic settings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltmannE. M.TraftonJ. G. (2002). Memory for goals: an activation-based model. Cognitive Science, 26, 39–83.
2.
BaileyB. P.IqbalS. 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, 1–28.
3.
CadesD. M. (2011). Understanding the effects of interruptions on the quality of task performance (Dissertation). George Mason Univ., Fairfax, VA.
4.
DehaisF.CausseM.VachonF.RégisN.MenantE.TremblayS. (2014). Failure to detect critical auditory alerts in the cockpit: Evidence for inattentional deafness. Human Factors, 56, 631–644.
5.
EdwardsW. (1962). Dynamic decision theory and probabilistic information processing. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 4, 59–73.
6.
GonzalezC. (2004). Learning to make decisions in dynamic environments: Effects of time constraints and cognitive abilities. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46, 449–460.
7.
HodgettsH. M.JonesD. M. (2006). Contextual cues aid recovery from interruption: The role of associative activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1120–1132.
8.
HodgettsH. M.TremblayS.VallièresB. R.VachonF. (2015). Decision support and vulnerability to interruption in a dynamic multitasking environment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 79, 106–117.
HunterA. C.ParushA. (2010). Where did they go? Recovering dynamic objects after interruptions. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting (pp. 1990–1994). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.
11.
McFarlaneD. C. (2002). Comparison of four primary methods for coordinating the interruption of people in human-computer interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 17, 63–139.
12.
SalvucciD. D.TaatgenN. A. (2011). The multitasking mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
SasangoharF.ScottS. D.CummingsM. L. (2014). Supervisory-level interruption recovery in time-critical control tasks. Applied Ergonomics, 45, 1148–1156.
14.
SasangoharF.ScottS. D.DonmezB. (2013). Interruption management and recovery in time-critical supervisory-level tasks: A literature review. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 57th Annual Meeting (pp. 1745–1749). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.
15.
ScottS. D.MercierS.CummingsM. L.WangE. (2006). Assisting interruption recovery in supervisory control of multiple UAVs. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (pp. 699–703). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.
16.
ScottS. D.WanJ.SasangoharF.CummingsM. L. (2008). Mitigating supervisory-level interruptions in mission control operations. In Proceedings of 2nd Int’l Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, July 14-17, 2008, Las Vegas, NV.
17.
SpeierC.VesseyI.ValacichJ. S. (2003). The effects of interruptions, task complexity, and information presentation on computer-supported decision-making performance. Decision Sciences, 34, 771–797.
18.
St. JohnM.SmallmanH. S. (2008). Staying up to speed: Four design principles for maintaining and recovering situation awareness. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 2, 118–139.
19.
St. JohnM.SmallmanH. S.ManesD. I. (2005). Recovery from interruptions to a dynamic monitoring task: The beguiling utility of Instant Replay. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 473–477). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.
20.
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.
21.
TremblayS.VachonF.LafondD.KramerC. (2012). Dealing with task interruptions in complex dynamic environments: Are two heads better than one?Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54, 70–83.
22.
Van OrdenK. F.LimbertW.MakeigS.JungT. P. (2001). Eye activity correlates of workload during a visuospatial memory task. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 43, 111–121.
23.
WanJ.ScottS. D.CummingsM. L. (2007). Assisting interruption recovery in mission control operations (No. HAL2007-03). Humans and Automation Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
