Forgetting during interruptions: the role of goal similarity
Open accessAbstract
Resuming an interrupted task requires remembering the goals that governed behaviour immediately before the interruption. Here we examined whether forgetting of goals can be mitigated when goals of both the interrupting and the interrupted task are related. Participants performed a sequence task with operations denoted by letters. This task was occasionally interrupted by a secondary task, also involving letter processing. The hypotheses were that resumption of the primary task would be facilitated if, within the interrupting task, either the letters processed (Experiment 1) or the operations denoted by these letters (Experiment 2) matched the goals immediately preceding the interruption. There were fewer errors at resumption when the letters processed or the operations performed used letters processed immediately before the interruption compared to a random letter from the sequence task. These results indicate that forgetting of goals is moderated by the similarity of the goals pursued across interrupting and interrupted tasks.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Task interruptions typically result in a performance decline in the interrupted task.
“Although task interruptions have occasionally been shown to bring some benefits (Feldman and Greenway, 2021), they typically result in a performance decline in the interrupted task (e.g., Piątkowski et al., 2024; see Couffe and Michael, 2017;Hirsch et al., 2022;Trafton and Monk, 2007, for reviews).”
From Opportune moments for task interruptions: examining the cognitive mechanisms underlying interruption-timing effects (2025) · cites this paper as Piątkowski et al., 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Is working memory capacity task dependent?
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/0749-596x(89)90040-5 · Cited by 2,299 · see citing works
Time constraints and resource sharing in adults' working memory spans
Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S., & Camos, V. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.83 · Cited by 994 · see citing works
Memory for goals: an activation‐based model
Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2002) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2601_2 · Cited by 795 · see citing works
A feature model of immediate memory
Nairne, J. S. (1990) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03213879 · Cited by 710 · see citing works
The role of inhibition in task switching: A review
Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/pbr.17.1.1 · Cited by 493 · see citing works
Trafton, J. G., Altmann, E. M., Brock, D. P., & Mintz, F. E. (2003) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00023-5 · Cited by 457 · see citing works
Modeling working memory: An interference model of complex span
Oberauer, K., Lewandowsky, S., Farrell, S., Jarrold, C., & Greaves, M. (2012) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0272-4 · Cited by 371 · see citing works
The effect of interruption duration and demand on resuming suspended goals.
Monk, C. A., Trafton, J. G., & Boehm-Davis, D. A. (2008) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/a0014402 · Cited by 296 · see citing works
Forgetting in immediate serial recall: Decay, temporal distinctiveness, or interference?
Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2008) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.115.3.544 · Cited by 272 · see citing works
Two maintenance mechanisms of verbal information in working memory
Camos, V., Lagner, P., & Barrouillet, P. (2009) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.06.002 · Cited by 247 · see citing works
Momentary interruptions can derail the train of thought.
Altmann, E. M., Trafton, J. G., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0030986 · Cited by 230 · cited 6× · see citing works
“Altmann et al. (2014) showed that such inter-ruptions — even if only very brief, lasting less time than one operation in the primary task, and simple, requiring participants merely to copy two characters — lead to a signi fi cant decrement in performance in the primary task as evidenced by an…”
InfluentialRecovering From Interruptions: Implications for Driver Distraction Research
Monk, C. A., Boehm-Davis, D. A., Mason, G., & Trafton, J. G. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.4.650.56816 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Timecourse of recovery from task interruption: Data and a model
Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2007) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03193094 · Cited by 191 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Clearly, the types of goals pursued during interruptions do matter for episodic forgetting of goals of the primary task – the mechanism by which errors arise at resumption (Altmann & Trafton, 2007).”
Interruption of the Tower of London task: Support for a goal-activation approach.
Hodgetts, H. M., & Jones, D. M. (2006) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.103 · Cited by 158 · see citing works
Self-citationTrafton, J. G., & Monk, C. A. (2007) · Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics · doi:10.1518/155723408x299852 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Contextual cues aid recovery from interruption: the role of associative activation
Hodgetts, H. M., & Jones, D. M. (2006) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.1120 · Cited by 116 · cited 4× · see citing works
“It has long been known that interrupting a primary task with a requirement to perform a secondary task impairs performance when the primary task is resumed (Hodgetts & Jones, 2006a).”
InfluentialSelf-citationOberauer, K. (2009) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/mc.37.3.346 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Rehearsal in serial recall: An unworkable solution to the nonexistent problem of decay.
Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2015) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0039684 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Li, S. Y. W., BLANDFORD, A. E., Cairns, P. A., & Young, R. M. (2008) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037/a0014397 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Working Memory Capacity Limits Memory for Bindings
Oberauer, K. (2019) · Journal of Cognition · doi:10.5334/joc.86 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Storing Verbal Information in Working Memory
Camos, V. (2015) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721415606630 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Radović, T., & Manzey, D. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02522 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Does the Difficulty of an Interruption Affect our Ability to Resume?
Cades, D. M., Davis, D. A. B., Trafton, J. G., & Monk, C. A. (2007) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193120705100419 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Brief Lags in Interrupted Sequential Performance: Evaluating a Model and Model Evaluation Method
Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2015) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.12.007 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Effects of interruption length on procedural errors
Altmann, E. M., Trafton, J. G., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/xap0000117 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
The Effect of Interruption Modality on Primary Task Resumption
Ratwani, R. M., Andrews, A. E., Sousk, J. D., & Trafton, J. G. (2008) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193120805200441 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Working memory still needs verbal rehearsal
Lucidi, A., Langerock, N., Hoareau, V., Lemaire, B., Camos, V., & Barrouillet, P. (2015) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-015-0561-z · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Forewarning interruptions in dynamic settings: Can prevention bolster recovery?
Labonté, K., Tremblay, S., & Vachon, F. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037/xap0000219 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Hirsch, P., Moretti, L., Askin, S., & Koch, I. (2023) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-023-01458-8 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Practice increases procedural errors after task interruption.
Altmann, E. M., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000274 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Radović, T., & Manzey, D. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000981 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Beaman, C. P., & Jones, D. M. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00341 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citationElaboration by superposition: From interference in working memory to encoding in long-term memory.
Piątkowski, K., von Bastian, C. C., Zawadzka, K., & Hanczakowski, M. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0001188 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Piątkowski, K., Beaman, C. P., Jones, D. M., Zawadzka, K., & Hanczakowski, M.
- Affiliations
- Uniwersytet SWPS (PL)
- University of Reading (GB)
- Cardiff University (GB)
- Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań (PL)
- Corresponding author
- Piątkowski, Krzysztof
- Hanczakowski, Maciej
- Venue
- Journal of Cognitive Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2024-02-09
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 560-575
- ISSN
- 2044-5911 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-592X
- OpenAlex
- W4391685269
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3
- FWCI
- 1.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Journal of Cognitive Psychology (publishedVersion)
- ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
- CentAUR (University of Reading) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Centre (2017/27/B/HS6/02001)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Keywords
- task interruption, task resumption, secondary task interference, goal-directed behavior, letter processing
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
