Characterizing and Predicting Mental Fatigue during Programming Tasks
Abstract
Mental fatigue reduces one's cognitive and physical abilities. In tasks requiring continuous attention, such as driving, fatigue is a well-known risk. However, when fatigued during daily tasks, such as programming, the nature of risk is more diffuse and accumulative, yet the consequences can be just as severe (e.g. defects in autopilot software). Identifying risks of fatigue in the context of programming can lead to interventions that prevent introduction of defects and introduce coping mechanisms. To character and predict these risks, we conducted two studies: a survey study in which we asked 311 software developers to rate the severity and frequency of their fatigue and to recall a recent experience of being fatigued while programming, and an observational study with 9 professional software developers to investigate the feasibility of predicting fatigue from interaction history. From the survey, we found that a majority of developers report severe (66%) and frequent (59%) issues with fatigue. Further, we categorized their experiences into seven effects on programming tasks, which include reduced motivation and reduced ability to handle tasks involving large mental workloads. From our observational study, our results found how several measures, such as focus duration, key press time, error rates, and increases in software quality warnings, may be applied for detecting fatigue levels. Together, these results aims to support developers and the industry for improving software q…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The study extracted focus duration and activity/category switching frequency features inspired by Sarkar's work on mental fatigue of software developers.
“We further extracted features related to focus duration and activity / category switching frequency inspired by Sarkar mental fatigue of software developers [71].”
From Sensing Interruptibility in the Office: A Field Study on the Use of Biometric and Computer Interaction Sensors (2018) · cites this paper as [71]
Cites
Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research
(1988) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9 · Cited by 15,003 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Züger, M., Müller, S. C., Meyer, A. N., & Fritz, T. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3174165 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sarkar, S., & Parnin, C.
- Affiliations
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- North Carolina State University (US)
- ORCID
- Parnin, Chris
- Venue
- 2017 IEEE/ACM 2nd International Workshop on Emotion Awareness in Software Engineering (SEmotion)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2017-05
- Pages
- 32-37
- OpenAlex
- W4236370370
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 2.20
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Emotion Awareness in Software Engineering (SEmotion) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Keywords
- mental fatigue, software developers, programming tasks, fatigue prediction, fatigue detection, interaction history, software quality, developer well-being, error rate, mental workload
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