The efficiency of interruption handling in free and forced switching tasks

An ecologically valid experimental study of the effect of switching mode for the efficiency of interruption handling is presented. Two switching modes, free switching and forced switching, were used in the study. Free switching permits the subject to perform some preparatory activity before switching to the interrupting task, whereas forced switching makes any kind of preparation very difficult. It is shown that free switching makes handling of complex interruptions more efficient. In addition, an analysis of mean fixation duration at different stages of interruption handling shows that differences in interruption handling efficiency are paralleled by differences in cognitive workload. Implications for the notion of different interruption handling strategies which are aimed at optimizing cognitive workload are discussed.

1. Leonova A.B., Blinnikova I.V., Kapiza M.S. Effekty preryvanij i reguljacii dejatel'nosti: Opyt primenenija strukturno-integrativnogo podhoda k ocenke sostojanij cheloveka // Psihologija psihicheskih sostojanij: Sbornik statej / Pod red. A.O. Prohorova. Vyp.5. Kazan': Centr innovacionnyh tehnologij, 2004. S. 298–319.
2. Leonova A.B., Kapiza M.S., Blinnikova I.V., Velichkovskij B.B. Issledovanija chelovecheskogo faktora v sovremennoj komp'juterizovannoj srede: novye napravlenija razvitija inzhenernoj psihologii i jergonomiki // Problemy fundamental'noj i prikladnoj psihologii professional'noj dejatel'nosti / Pod red. V.A. Bodrova, A.L. Zhuravleva. M.: Institut psihologii RAN, 2008.S. 312–340.
3. Altmann E. M., & Trafton G. J. Memory for goals: An activation-based model // Cognitive Science. 2002. V. 26. P. 39–83.
4. Ahlstrom U., Friedman-Berg F. J. Using eye movement activity as a correlate of cognitive workload // Intrenational Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2006. № 36. P. 623–636.
5. Bailey B.P., Konstan J.A., Carlis J.V. Measuring the effects of interruptions on task performance in the user interface // IEEE Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Nashville. TN. 2000.
6. Kapitsa M.S., Blinnikova I.V. Task performance under the influence of interruptions // Operator functional state / G.R J. Hockey, A.W.K. Gaillard & O. Burov (Eds.). Amsterdam: IOS Press. 2003. P. 323–329.
7. Carton A. M., Aiello J. R. Control and anticipation of social interruptions: Reduced stress and improved task performance // Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2009. V. 39. I.1. P. 169–185.
8. Czerwinski M., Horvitz E., Wilhite S. A diary study of task switching and interruptions // Proceedings of ACM Human Factors in Computing Systems: Proceedings of CHI’04. New York: ACM Press. 2004. P. 175–182.
9. Dismukes K., Young K., Sumwalt R. Cockpit interruptions and distractions: Effective management requires a careful balancing act // ASRS Directline. 1998. V. 10. I. 3. P. 4–9.
10. Hodgett, H. M., Jones D. M. Interruptions in the Tower of London rask: Can preparation minmize disruption // Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th annual conference. 2003. P. 1000–1001.
11. Hodgetts H. M., Jones D. M. Contextual cues aid recovery from interruption: The role of associative activation // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition. 2006. V. 32. I. 5. P. 1120–1132.
12. McFarlane D. C. Coordinating the interruption of people in human-computer interaction // Human-computer interaction- INTERACT ’99 / M.A. Sasse & C. Johnson (Eds.). Edinburgh, UK: IOS, 1999. P. 295–303.
13. McFarlane D. C., Latorella K. A.. The scope and importance of human interruption in human-computer interaction design // Human-Computer Interaction. 2002. V. 17. P. 1–61.
14. Shadish W. R., Cook T. D., Campbell T.D. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001.
15. Trafton J. G., Altmann E. M., Brock D. P., Mint F. E. Preparing to resume an interrupted task: Effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal // International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 2003. V. 58. P. 583–603.
16. Velichkovsky B.B. Proactive and reactive strategies in interruption handling // Proceedings of the 31th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society / N.A.Taatgen & H. van Rijk (Eds.). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, 2009. P. 2268–2273.
17. Velichkovsky B.B., Blinnikova I.V., Kapitsa M.S. Effects of task switching on interruption handling in text editing // Proceedings of EuroCogSci07: The European Cognitive Science Conference / S. Vosniadou, D. Kayser, A. Protopapas (Eds.). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007. P. 936.
18. Zijlstra F. R. H., Roe R. A., Leonora A. B., Krediet I. Temporal factors in mental work: Effects of interrupted activities // Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 1999. V. 72. P. 163–185.