Decision support and vulnerability to interruption in a dynamic multitasking environment

Using a microworld simulation of maritime decision making, we compared two decision support systems (DSS) in their impact upon recovery from interruption. The Temporal Overview Display (TOD) and Change History Table (CHT) - designed to support temporal awareness and change detection, respectively - have previously proven useful in improving situation awareness; however, evaluation of support tools for multitasking environments should not be limited to the specific aspects of the task that they were designed to augment. Using a combination of performance, self-report, and eye-tracking measures, we find that both DSS counter-intuitively have a negative effect on performance. Resumption lags are increased, elevated post-interruption decision-making times persist for longer, and defensive effectiveness is impaired relative to No-DSS. Eye-tracking measures indicate that in the baseline condition, participants tend to encode the visual display more broadly, where as those in the two DSS conditions may have experienced a degree of attentional tunnelling due to high workload. We suggest that for a support tool to be beneficial it should ease the burden on attentional resources so that these can be used for reconstructing a mental model of the post-interruption scene. We use a maritime microworld to study multitasking and interruption recovery.We use a holistic approach in the assessment of two DSS.We use a combination of performance, self-report and eye tracking measures.Both DSS impair defensive effectiveness and prolong interruption recovery.

[1]  Frédéric Dehais,et al.  The Perseveration Syndrome in the Pilot's Activity: Guidelines and Cognitive Countermeasures , 2009, HESSD.

[2]  A J Courtney,et al.  Effects of Cognitive Foveal Load on a Peripheral Single-Target Detection Task , 1993, Perceptual and motor skills.

[3]  D. Mook,et al.  In defense of external invalidity. , 1983 .

[4]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Argus: A suite of tools for research in complex cognition , 2001, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

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

[6]  Dario D. Salvucci.  On reconstruction of task context after interruption , 2010, CHI.

[7]  Björn Johansson,et al.  Monitoring distributed collaboration in the C3Fire microworld , 2004 .

[8]  M. Masson.  "Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation": Correction to Masson and Loftus (2003). , 2004 .

[9]  Sébastien Tremblay,et al.  Supporting Change Detection in Complex Dynamic Situations: Does the CHEX Serve its Purpose? , 2012 .

[10]  B. Brehmer.  Dynamic decision making: human control of complex systems. , 1992, Acta psychologica.

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

[12]  Wayne D. Gray.  Simulated task environments: The role of high-fidelity simulations, scaled worlds, synthetic environments, and laboratory tasks in basic and applied cognitive research. , 2002 .

[13]  Kay M. Stanney,et al.  Advances in Cognitive Engineering and Neuroergonomics , 2012 .

[14]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Contextual cues aid recovery from interruption: the role of associative activation. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[15]  Ray Dawson,et al.  Reducing the effect of email interruptions on employees , 2003, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[16]  William C. Elm,et al.  Case Studies: Applied Cognitive Work Analysis in the Design of Innovative Decision Support , 2003 .

[17]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Multiple resources and performance prediction , 2002 .

[18]  Raj M. Ratwani,et al.  The Effect of Interruption Modality on Primary Task Resumption , 2008 .

[19]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Rapid Resumption of Interrupted Visual Search , 2005, Psychological science.

[20]  C. Lebiere,et al.  The Atomic Components of Thought , 1998 .

[21]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Consequences of display changes during interrupted visual search: Rapid resumption is target specific , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[22]  M. Just,et al.  Eye fixations and cognitive processes , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[23]  S. Kirmeyer,et al.  Coping with competing demands: interruption and the type A pattern. , 1988, The Journal of applied psychology.

[24]  Linden J. Ball,et al.  Eye Tracking in Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Research : Current Status and Future Prospects , 2004 .

[25]  Amy L. Alexander,et al.  Attentional Tunneling and Task Management in Synthetic Vision Displays , 2009 .

[26]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[27]  Daniel J. Callan.  Eye Movement Relationships to Excessive Performance Error in Aviation , 1998 .

[28]  Harvey S. Smallman,et al.  Chex (Change History Explicit): New HCI Concepts for Change Awareness , 2003 .

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

[30]  Manuel A. Pérez-Quiñones,et al.  Evaluating two aspects of direct manipulation in advanced cockpits , 1992, CHI.

[31]  Harvey S. Smallman,et al.  Staying Up to Speed: Four Design Principles for Maintaining and Recovering Situation Awareness , 2008 .

[32]  D. Simons,et al.  Change Blindness Blindness: The Metacognitive Error of Overestimating Change-detection Ability , 2000 .

[33]  S. Tremblay,et al.  Cognitive conflict in human-automation interactions: a psychophysiological study. , 2012, Applied ergonomics.

[34]  John T. Stasko,et al.  Establishing tradeoffs that leverage attention for utility: empirically evaluating information display in notification systems , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[35]  Cleotilde González.  Decision Support for Real-Time, Dynamic Decision-Making Tasks , 2005 .

[36]  Daniel Lafond,et al.  Assessing temporal support for dynamic decision making in C2 , 2007 .

[37]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[38]  M. Masson.  Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. , 2003, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[39]  Raj M. Ratwani,et al.  The law of unintended consequences: the case of external subgoal support , 2014, CHI.

[40]  Jean-Paul Imbert,et al.  Attentional costs and failures in air traffic control notifications , 2014, Ergonomics.

[41]  B. Brehmer,et al.  Experiments with computer-simulated microworlds: Escaping both the narrow straits of the laboratory and the deep blue sea of the field study , 1993 .

[42]  Raj M. Ratwani,et al.  An Eye Movement Analysis of the Effect of Interruption Modality on Primary Task Resumption , 2010, Hum. Factors.

[43]  Harvey S. Smallman,et al.  Naive Realism: Misplaced Faith in Realistic Displays , 2005 .

[44]  Daniel Lafond,et al.  Dealing With Task Interruptions in Complex Dynamic Environments , 2012, Hum. Factors.

[45]  Daniel Lafond,et al.  A Cognitive and Holistic Approach to Developing Metrics for Decision Support Incommand and Control , 2010 .

[46]  Raj M. Ratwani,et al.  Spatial memory guides task resumption , 2008 .

[47]  Yuhong V Jiang,et al.  Interrupted visual searches reveal volatile search memory. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[48]  Mark W. Wiggins,et al.  Polychronicity and Information Acquisition in Pilot Decision Making , 2008 .

[49]  Daniel Lafond,et al.  Supporting situation awareness: A tradeoff between benefits and overhead , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Multi-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA).

[50]  Sébastien Tremblay,et al.  Background Sound Impairs Interruption Recovery in Dynamic Task Situations: Procedural Conflict? , 2014 .

[51]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Modeling the Control of Attention in Visual Workspaces , 2011, Hum. Factors.

[52]  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..

[53]  Joseph H. Goldberg,et al.  Computer interface evaluation using eye movements: methods and constructs , 1999 .

[54]  Harvey S. Smallman,et al.  Recovery from Interruptions to a Dynamic Monitoring Task: The Beguiling Utility of Instant Replay , 2005 .

[55]  M. A. Recarte,et al.  Effects of verbal and spatial-imagery tasks on eye fixations while driving. , 2000 .

[56]  Cleotilde Gonzalez,et al.  The use of microworlds to study dynamic decision making , 2005, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[57]  Dennis B. Beringer,et al.  Automation in General Aviation: Two Studies of Pilot Responses to Autopilot Malfunctions , 1999 .

[58]  Mark W. Wiggins,et al.  The Application of Reduced-Processing Decision Support Systems to Facilitate the Acquisition of Decision-Making Skills , 2013, Hum. Factors.

[59]  Daniel Gartenberg,et al.  Situation Awareness Reacquisition in a Supervisory Control Task , 2011 .