Cited by 103Personal Information Management and User BehaviorHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Recovering from an interruption: investigating speed− accuracy trade-offs in task resumption behavior

Brumby, Duncan P., Cox, Anna L., Back, Jonathan, Gould, Sandy J. J.·2013·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Abstract

Interruptions are disruptive because they take time to recover from, in the form of a resumption lag, and lead to an increase in the likelihood of errors being made. Despite an abundance of work investigating the effect of interruptions on routine task performance, little is known about whether there is a link between how quickly a task is resumed following an interruption (i.e., the duration of the postinterruption resumption lag) and the likelihood that an error is made. Two experiments are reported in which participants were interrupted by a cognitively demanding secondary mental arithmetic task while working on a routine sequential data-entry task. In Experiment 1 the time-cost of making an error on the primary task was varied between conditions. When errors were associated with a high time-cost penalty, participants made fewer errors and resumed the primary task more slowly than when errors were associated with a low time-cost penalty. In Experiment 2 participants were prohibited from resuming the primary task quickly by a 10-s system lockout period following the completion of the interrupting task. This lockout period led to a significant reduction in resumption errors because the lockout prohibited fast, inaccurate task resumptions. Taken together, our results suggest that longer resumption lags following an interruption are beneficial in terms of reducing the likelihood of errors being made. We discuss the practical implications of how systems might be designed to encourage more reflective task resumption behavior in situations where interruptions are commonplace. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0032696

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brumby, D. P., Cox, A. L., Back, J., & Gould, S. J. J.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied
Published
2013
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
95-107
ISSN
  • 1076-898X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2192
OpenAlex
W2020227520
Cited by
103
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 2
FWCI
27.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/G059063/1 & EP/G043507/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
interruptions, task resumption, speed-accuracy trade-off, error rate, mental arithmetic, data entry, task switching, system design
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, Mathematics, Memory, Reaction Time, Task Performance and Analysis, Time Factors, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review