A model for task switching which focuses on the decision making of operators in overloaded multitask conditions is reviewed and new research presented. The STOM model is an ongoing effort and as such, work is now accumulating, which serves to validate the model as a useful predictive method, but also is uncovering uncertainties that require further investigation. Here we summarize the origins of the model, which was informed by past modeling efforts, a literature review and a meta-analysis. We then describe in detail the basic parameters of STOM and the current status of each, before discussing future directions and six uncertainties uncovered when building our understanding of task switching choice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArringtonC. M.LoganG. D. (2004). The cost of a voluntary task switch. Psychological Science, 15(9), 610–615.
2.
Barg-WalkowL.RogersW. (2017) Modeling Task Scheduling in Complex Healthcare Environments: Identifying Relevant Factors. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 61
3.
CarbonnellJ. F.WardJ.SendersJ. (1968). A queuing model of visual sampling: Experimental validation. IEEE Transactions on Man Machine Systems, 9, 82-72.
4.
DawesR. (1979). The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist, 34, 571–582.
5.
DismukesR. K. (2010). Remembrance of things future: prospective memory in the workplace, laboratory and everyday settings. In HarrisD. (Ed.), Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 6. Human Factors: Santa Monica, CA.
6.
DugganG.JohnsonH.SørliP. (2013). Interleaving tasks to improve performance: Users maximise the marginal rate of return. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(5), 533–550.
7.
FreedM. (2000). Reactive prioritization. In Proceedings NASA International Workshop on Planning and Scheduling in Space. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
8.
GilbertK. M.WickensC. D. (2017). The priority mystery in busineness switching tasks. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 61.
9.
GopherD.WeilM.SiegelD. (1989). Practice under changing priorities: An approach to the training of complex skills. Acta Psychologica, 71, 147–177.
10.
GutzwillerR. S. (2014). Switch choice in applied multi-task management. Doctoral Dissertation, 1–179.
11.
GutzwillerR. S.SitzmanD. S. (2017). Examining task priority effects in multi-task management. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 61.
12.
GutzwillerR. S.WickensC. D.CleggB. A. (2015). The role of individual differences in executive attentional networks and switching choices in multi-task managementa. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 59, 632–636.
13.
GutzwillerR. S.WickensC. D.CleggB. A. (2016). The role of time on task in multi-task management. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5, 176–184.
14.
HorreyW. J.WickensC. D. (2004). Driving and side task performance: the effects of display clutter, separation, and modality. Human Factors, 46(4), 611–624.
15.
IaniC.WickensC. D. (2007). Factors affecting task management in aviation. Human Factors, 49(1), 16–24.
16.
JinJ.DabbishL. (2009). Self-interruption on the computer: a typology of discretionary task interleaving. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1799–1808). ACM.
17.
KatidiotiI. (2016). Understanding and Managing Interruptions: How to avoid watching cat videos all day long. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Groningen.
18.
KurzbanR.DuckworthA.KableJ. W.MyersJ. (2013). An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(6), 661–79.
19.
MorayN. (1986). Monitoring behavior and supervisory control. In BoffK.KaufmanL.ThomasJ. (Eds.), Handbook of Perception and Human Performance (pp. 1–51). New York: Wiley.
20.
NijboerM.TaatgenN. A.BrandsA.BorstJ. P.Van RijnH. (2013). Decision making in concurrent multitasking: Do people adapt to task interference?PLoS ONE, 8(11).
21.
PayneS. J.DugganG. B.NethH. (2007). Discretionary task interleaving: Heuristics for time allocation in cognitive foraging. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(3), 370–388.
22.
RabyM.WickensC. D. (1994). Strategic workload management and decision biases in aviation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4(3), 211-240.
23.
RecarteM. A.NunesL. M. (2000). Effects of verbal and spatial imagery tasks on eye fixations while driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6(1), 31–43.
24.
ReisslandJ.ManzeyD. (2016). Serial or overlapping processing in multitasking as individual preference: Effects of stimulus preview on task switching and concurrent dual-task performance. Acta Psychologica, 168, 27-40.
25.
SebokA. (2017). The strategic task overload model: History, status, challenges, and extensions into new domains. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 61.
26.
SendersJ. W. (1983). Visual scanning processes. Tilburg: University of Tilburg Press
27.
SheridanT. B. (1970). On how often the supervisor should sample. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science & Cybernetics, 6, 140–145.
28.
SheridanT.B. (2007). Attention and its allocation: Fragments of a model. In KramerA.WiegmannD. A.KirlikA. (Eds.), Attention: From Theory to Practice (pp. 16–26). Oxford University Press.
29.
WangD. D.ProctorR. W.PickD. F. (2009). Allocation of effort as a function of payoffs for individual tasks in a multitasking environment. Behavior Research Methods, 41(3), 705–716.
30.
WickensC. D. (2015). Noticing events in the visual workplace: The SEEV and NSEEV models. In HoffmanR.ParasuramanR. (Eds), Handbook of Applied Perception. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press
31.
WickensC. D.AlexanderA. L. (2009). Attentional tunneling and task management in synthetic vision displays. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 19(2), 182–199.
32.
WickensC. D.GutzwillerR. S.SantamariaA. (2015). Discrete task switching in overload: A meta-analysis and a model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 79, 79–84.
33.
WickensC. D.GutzwillerR. S.VieaneA. Z.CleggB. A.SebokA.JanesJ. (2016). Time sharing between robotics and process control: Validating a model of attention switching. Human Factors, 58(2), 322-343.
