Examining task engagement in sensor-based statistical models of human interruptibility

The computer and communication systems that office workers currently use tend to interrupt at inappropriate times or unduly demand attention because they have no way to determine when an interruption is appropriate. Sensor?based statistical models of human interruptibility offer a potential solution to this problem. Prior work to examine such models has primarily reported results related to social engagement, but it seems that task engagement is also important. Using an approach developed in our prior work on sensor?based statistical models of human interruptibility, we examine task engagement by studying programmers working on a realistic programming task. After examining many potential sensors, we implement a system to log low?level input events in a development environment. We then automatically extract features from these low?level event logs and build a statistical model of interruptibility. By correctly identifying situations in which programmers are non?interruptible and minimizing cases where the model incorrectly estimates that a programmer is non?interruptible, we can support a reduction in costly interruptions while still allowing systems to convey notifications in a timely manner.

[1]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  Coordinates: Probabilistic Forecasting of Presence and Availability , 2002, UAI.

[2]  Christopher G. Atkeson,et al.  Predicting human interruptibility with sensors , 2005, TCHI.

[3]  A MyersBrad,et al.  A framework and methodology for studying the causes of software errors in programming systems , 2005 .

[4]  Huan Liu,et al.  Feature Selection for High-Dimensional Data: A Fast Correlation-Based Filter Solution , 2003, ICML.

[5]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  Learning and reasoning about interruption , 2003, ICMI '03.

[6]  L. Perlow The Time Famine: Toward a Sociology of Work Time , 1999 .

[7]  Ron Kohavi,et al.  Wrappers for Feature Subset Selection , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Richard O. Duda,et al.  Pattern classification and scene analysis , 1974, A Wiley-Interscience publication.

[9]  Allen E. Milewski,et al.  Providing presence cues to telephone users , 2000, CSCW '00.

[10]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  Attention-Sensitive Alerting , 1999, UAI.

[11]  D. Rubin,et al.  Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM - algorithm plus discussions on the paper , 1977 .

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

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

[14]  Wendy A. Kellogg,et al.  "I'd be overwhelmed, but it's just one more thing to do": availability and interruption in research management , 2002, CHI.

[15]  Sridhar Seshadri,et al.  Managerial Allocation of Time and Effort: The Effects of Interruptions , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[16]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques with Java implementations , 2002, SGMD.

[17]  John C. Tang,et al.  Work rhythms: analyzing visualizations of awareness histories of distributed groups , 2002, CSCW '02.

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

[19]  Ian Witten,et al.  Data Mining , 2000 .

[20]  Patrick Lemaire,et al.  The Role of Working Memory Resources in Simple Cognitive Arithmetic , 1996 .

[21]  Pat Langley,et al.  Induction of Selective Bayesian Classifiers , 1994, UAI.

[22]  Bernt Schiele,et al.  Context-aware notification for wearable computing , 2003, Seventh IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers, 2003. Proceedings..

[23]  John C. Tang,et al.  Rhythm modeling, visualizations and applications , 2003, UIST '03.

[24]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Novice LISP Errors: Undetected Losses of Information from Working Memory , 1985, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[25]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  Instant Messaging and Interruption: Influence of Task Type on Performance , 2000 .

[26]  James Fogarty,et al.  Examining the robustness of sensor-based statistical models of human interruptibility , 2004, CHI.

[27]  Christopher G. Atkeson,et al.  Predicting human interruptibility with sensors: a Wizard of Oz feasibility study , 2003, CHI '03.

[28]  Margaret M. Burnett,et al.  Impact of interruption style on end-user debugging , 2004, CHI.