What Makes Interruptions Disruptive?: A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption

In this paper we present a computational cognitive model of task interruption and resumption, focusing on the effects of the problem state bottleneck. Previous studies have shown that the disruptiveness of interruptions is for an important part determined by three factors: interruption duration, interrupting-task complexity, and moment of interruption. However, an integrated theory of these effects is still missing. Based on previous research into multitasking, we propose a first step towards such a theory in the form of a process model that attributes these effects to problem state requirements of both the interrupted and the interrupting task. Subsequently, we tested two predictions of this model in two experiments. The experiments confirmed that problem state requirements are an important predictor for the disruptiveness of interruptions. This suggests that interfaces should be designed to a) interrupt users at low-problem state moments and b) maintain the problem state for the user when interrupted.

[1]  Miao‐kun Sun,et al.  Trends in cognitive sciences , 2012 .

[2]  Niels Taatgen,et al.  The Multitasking Mind , 2010, Oxford series on cognitive models and architectures.

[3]  Anna L. Cox,et al.  What does it mean for an interruption to be relevant? An investigation of relevance as a memory effect , 2013 .

[4]  Daniel C. McFarlane,et al.  Comparison of Four Primary Methods for Coordinating the Interruption of People in Human-Computer Interaction , 2002, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[5]  Dario D. Salvucci,et al.  The effects of time constraints on user behavior for deferrable interruptions , 2011, CHI.

[6]  Dario D. Salvucci,et al.  Multitasking and monotasking: the effects of mental workload on deferred task interruptions , 2010, CHI.

[7]  Kara A. Latorella,et al.  The Scope and Importance of Human Interruption in Human-Computer Interaction Design , 2002, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[8]  Víctor M. González,et al.  "Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness": managing multiple working spheres , 2004, CHI.

[9]  Jelle R. Dalenberg,et al.  Pupil Dilation Co-Varies with Memory Strength of Individual Traces in a Delayed Response Paired-Associate Task , 2012, PloS one.

[10]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  A diary study of task switching and interruptions , 2004, CHI.

[11]  Christopher A. Monk,et al.  Dealing with Interruptions can be Complex, but does Interruption Complexity Matter: A Mental Resources Approach to Quantifying Disruptions , 2008 .

[12]  M. B. Edwards,et al.  Task interruption and its effects on memory. , 1998, Memory.

[13]  Brian P. Bailey,et al.  Towards an index of opportunity: understanding changes in mental workload during task execution , 2004, CHI.

[14]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  Notification, Disruption, and Memory: Effects of Messaging Interruptions on Memory and Performance , 2001, INTERACT.

[15]  W H Cordell,et al.  Work interrupted: a comparison of workplace interruptions in emergency departments and primary care offices. , 2001, Annals of emergency medicine.

[16]  F. Zijlstra,et al.  Temporal factors in mental work: Effects of interrupted activities , 1999 .

[17]  J. Trafton,et al.  Does the Difficulty of an Interruption Affect our Ability to Resume? , 2007 .

[18]  Jelmer P. Borst,et al.  The Costs of Multitasking in Threaded Cognition , 2007 .

[19]  N. Taatgen,et al.  What happens when we switch tasks: pupil dilation in multitasking. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[20]  Brian P. Bailey,et al.  Investigating the effectiveness of mental workload as a predictor of opportune moments for interruption , 2005, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[21]  Niels Taatgen,et al.  Choice in Multitasking , 2014, Hum. Factors.

[22]  Jelmer P Borst,et al.  Avoiding the problem state bottleneck by strategic use of the environment. , 2013, Acta psychologica.

[23]  H Eyrolle,et al.  The effects of interruptions in work activity: field and laboratory results. , 2000, Applied ergonomics.

[24]  J. Trafton,et al.  The effect of interruption duration and demand on resuming suspended goals. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[25]  Larry D. Rosen,et al.  Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[26]  John R. Anderson.  How Can the Human Mind Occur in the Physical Universe , 2007 .

[27]  Brian P. Bailey,et al.  If not now, when?: the effects of interruption at different moments within task execution , 2004, CHI.

[28]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Interruption of the Tower of London task: support for a goal-activation approach. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[29]  J. Gregory Trafton,et al.  Preparing to resume an interrupted task: effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[30]  E. M. Altmann,et al.  Momentary interruptions can derail the train of thought. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[31]  Niels Taatgen,et al.  Single-task fMRI overlap predicts concurrent multitasking interference , 2014, NeuroImage.

[32]  Christopher A. Monk,et al.  A Process-Model Account of Task Interruption and Resumption: When Does Encoding of the Problem State Occur? , 2009 .

[33]  Laura A. Dabbish,et al.  Self-interruption on the computer: a typology of discretionary task interleaving , 2009, CHI.

[34]  Leon Eisenberg,et al.  IF NOT NOW, WHEN?* , 1962 .

[35]  A. Gelenberg,et al.  If not now, when? , 1992, The Journal of clinical psychiatry.

[36]  Christopher A. Monk,et al.  Recovering From Interruptions: Implications for Driver Distraction Research , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[37]  G. D. Logan.  Task Switching , 2022 .

[38]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  Disruption and recovery of computing tasks: field study, analysis, and directions , 2007, CHI.

[39]  D. Broadbent,et al.  What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity , 1989 .

[40]  Andrea Stocco,et al.  The Neural Correlates of Problem States: Testing fMRI Predictions of a Computational Model of Multitasking , 2010, PloS one.

[41]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Human Symbol Manipulation Within an Integrated Cognitive Architecture , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[42]  S. Monsell.  Task-set reconfiguration processes do not imply a control homunuculus: Reply to Altmann , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[43]  J. Gregory Trafton,et al.  Memory for goals: an activation-based model , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[44]  Klaus Oberauer,et al.  Design for a working memory. , 2009 .

[45]  Víctor M. González,et al.  No task left behind?: examining the nature of fragmented work , 2005, CHI.

[46]  N. Taatgen,et al.  The problem state: a cognitive bottleneck in multitasking. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[47]  E. M. Altmann,et al.  Timecourse of recovery from task interruption: Data and a model , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[48]  Brian P. Bailey,et al.  Leveraging characteristics of task structure to predict the cost of interruption , 2006, CHI.

[49]  Niels Taatgen,et al.  Using a symbolic process model as input for model-based fMRI analysis: Locating the neural correlates of problem state replacements , 2011, NeuroImage.