The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 12 of the 42 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
What Makes Interruptions Disruptive?: A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption
Open accessAbstract
In this paper we present a computational cognitive model of task interruption and resumption, focusing on the effects of the problem state bottleneck. Previous studies have shown that the disruptiveness of interruptions is for an important part determined by three factors: interruption duration, interrupting-task complexity, and moment of interruption. However, an integrated theory of these effects is still missing. Based on previous research into multitasking, we propose a first step towards such a theory in the form of a process model that attributes these effects to problem state requirements of both the interrupted and the interrupting task. Subsequently, we tested two predictions of this model in two experiments. The experiments confirmed that problem state requirements are an important predictor for the disruptiveness of interruptions. This suggests that interfaces should be designed to a) interrupt users at low-problem state moments and b) maintain the problem state for the user when interrupted.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
34 Own interpretation · 26 Own result · 6 No full text of the sources · 4 Supported so far · 4 Partly supported · 3 Own method · 2 Sources not found · 1 Supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Several studies have shown that the longer the interruption is, the longer it takes to resume the interrupted task [4,23,35]”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > What Makes Interruptions Disruptive?
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [4] 4. Altmann, E.M., Trafton, J.G., and Hambrick, D.Z. Momentary interruptions can derail the train of thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143, 1 (2014), 215-226. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Analysis 1 (p. 5) reports a small increase in post-interruption response latency in Experiment 1, whose interruptions averaged 4.4 seconds, but no latency effect in Experiment 2, whose interruptions averaged 2.8 seconds. This is consistent with the claim, but the paper does not establish that resumption time increases as interruption duration increases; the experiments also differed in the interruption task. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Supportedcites [23] 23. Hodgetts, H.M. and Jones, D.M. Interruption of the Tower of London task: support for a goal-activation approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 135, 1 (2006), 103-15. source
The Results and Discussion (p. 6) report that participants resumed the Tower of London task significantly more slowly after an 18-second interruption than after a 6-second interruption. The General Discussion (p. 11) also states that longer intervening activities increased the time cost of resuming the task. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] 35. Monk, C.A., Trafton, J.G., and Boehm-Davis, D.A. The effect of interruption duration and demand on resuming suspended goals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 14, 4 (2008), 299-313. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“In addition, more complex interruptions (e.g., solving 17+36 as compared to 2+3; [23]) also lead to longer resumption times [13,14,20,23,35].”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > What Makes Interruptions Disruptive?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [13] 13. Cades, D.M., Davis, D.A.B., Trafton, J.G., and Monk, C.A. Does the Difficulty of an Interruption Affect our Ability to Resume? In Proc. HFES. 2007, 234-238.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [14] 14. Cades, D.M., Werner, N., Boehm-Davis, D.A., Trafton, J.G., and Monk, C.A. Dealing with Interruptions can be Complex, but does Interruption Complexity Matter: A Mental Resources Approach to Quantifying Disruptions. In Proc. HFES. 2008, 398-402. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] 20. Gillie, T. and Broadbent, D.E. What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychological Research 50, (1989), 243- 250. source
- Supportedcites [23] 23. Hodgetts, H.M. and Jones, D.M. Interruption of the Tower of London task: support for a goal-activation approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 135, 1 (2006), 103-15. source
The Results and Discussion (p. 10) report that resumption times were longer after complex arithmetic interruptions than after simple ones, even when interruption length was controlled. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] 35. Monk, C.A., Trafton, J.G., and Boehm-Davis, D.A. The effect of interruption duration and demand on resuming suspended goals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 14, 4 (2008), 299-313. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“These studies confirmed that users take less time to resume a task when interrupted at low-workload moments [25,26] (see [32] for an additional example).”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > What Makes Interruptions Disruptive?
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [25] 25. Iqbal, S.T. and Bailey, B.P. Investigating the effectiveness of mental workload as a predictor of opportune moments for interruption. In Proc. CHI. 2005, 1489-1492. source
The User Study section defines Best moments as low-workload boundaries. The Resumption Lag section reports that users resumed their tasks almost three times faster after interruptions at Best moments than at Worst or Random moments. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites [26] 26. Iqbal, S.T. and Bailey, B.P. Leveraging characteristics of task structure to predict the cost of interruption. In Proc. CHI. 2006, 741-750. source
The Introduction reports that interruptions at lower-workload subtask boundaries had meaningfully lower costs than those at higher-workload boundaries. The Measurements section defines that cost as resumption lag—the time until the first action on the resumed task—supporting the claim about taking less time to resume. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [32] 32. McFarlane, D. Comparison of Four Primary Methods for Coordinating the Interruption of People in Human- Computer Interaction. Human-Computer Interaction 17, 1 (2002), 63-139. source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“In a series of experiments it was shown that subjects were considerably slower and made more errors when the problem state was required for two tasks, as compared to one or none of the tasks [8,10,11,12,37].”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > The Problem State Bottleneck in Multitasking
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] 8. Borst, J.P., Buwalda, T.A., Van Rijn, H., and Taatgen, N.A. Avoiding the Problem State Bottleneck by Strategic use of the Environment. Acta Psychologica 144, 2 (2013), 373-379. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] 10. Borst, J.P., Taatgen, N.A., and Van Rijn, H. The Problem State: A Cognitive Bottleneck in Multitasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 36, 2 (2010), 363- 382. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [11] 11. Borst, J.P., Taatgen, N.A., and Van Rijn, H. Using a Symbolic Process Model as input for Model-Based fMRI Analysis: Locating the Neural Correlates of Problem State Replacements. NeuroImage 58, 1 (2011), 137-147. source
- Supportedcites [12] 12. Borst, J.P., Taatgen, N.A., Stocco, A., and Van Rijn, H. The Neural Correlates of Problem States: Testing fMRI Predictions of a Computational Model of Multitasking. PLoS ONE 5, 9 (2010), e12966. source
The Results (Behavioral Results, Discussion) report that when both tasks required a problem state, response times increased and accuracy decreased. The Introduction (A Priori Model Predictions) also reports that the hard–hard condition produced higher response times and lower accuracy than the other conditions in an earlier behavioral experiment. The supplied passages have section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [37] 37. Nijboer, M., Borst, J.P., Van Rijn, H., and Taatgen, N.A. Single-task fMRI overlap predicts concurrent multitasking interference. NeuroImage 100, (2014), 60-74. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“which showed that Task Level, Difficulty of Next Subtask, and Carry-Over between Subtasks, were the most important predictors of interruption disruptiveness.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [26] 26. Iqbal, S.T. and Bailey, B.P. Leveraging characteristics of task structure to predict the cost of interruption. In Proc. CHI. 2006, 741-750. source
In “Determine the Most Predictive Factors” (page unavailable), the paper describes using stepwise regression to identify the candidate factors most predictive of resumption lag. The Discussion (page unavailable) names Level, Carryover, and Difficulty of Next Subtask as the three characteristics used to predict cost of interruption at subtask boundaries. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“It was shown in multiple studies that it is better to be interrupted between tasks [25,26,34] than in the middle of a task.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [25] 25. Iqbal, S.T. and Bailey, B.P. Investigating the effectiveness of mental workload as a predictor of opportune moments for interruption. In Proc. CHI. 2005, 1489-1492. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that interruptions at predicted Best moments caused less disruption than interruptions at Random or Worst moments. But the User Study defines those moments as lower- and higher-workload boundaries within a task; it does not test interruptions between tasks against interruptions in the middle of a task. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Supportedcites [26] 26. Iqbal, S.T. and Bailey, B.P. Leveraging characteristics of task structure to predict the cost of interruption. In Proc. CHI. 2006, 741-750. source
The Introduction reports that interruptions at subtask boundaries have much lower costs than interruptions at nonboundary moments. The Empirical Cost of Interruption section likewise reports longer resumption times, more errors, and more negative affect when interruptions occur at random moments rather than boundaries. The paper's comparison is specifically about subtask boundaries, which supports the citing sentence's general point about interrupting between activities rather than mid-task. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [34] 34. Monk, C.A., Boehm-Davis, D.A., and Trafton, J.G. Recovering From Interruptions: Implications for Driver Distraction Research. Human Factors 46, 4 (2004), 650-663. source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A repeated-measures ANOVA (Table 1) confirmed main effects of Subtraction Difficulty and N-Back Difficulty.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the hard/hard condition, we found a significant effect of Interruption Duration (F(1,32) = 4.17, p = .0495,η p 2 = .12).”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there were fixed resumption costs of about 800 ms in all conditions.”
- Also stated in: § Model · plain
“The data shows a fixed cost of about 800 ms in all conditions.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Model · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and did not predict the overall difference between easy and hard subtraction.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Figure 4B shows the quantitative fit of a memory-forproblem-states model to the data of Experiment 1 (R 2 and RMSD-values are reported in the figure).”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Model
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participant accuracy on the n-back task was in all conditions over 90%, indicating that subjects focused on the n-back task.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the model underestimated the resumption costs by about 455 ms in all conditions”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Resumption costs only increased with interruption duration in the hard/hard condition.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“Thus, resumption costs only increased with interruption duration in the hard/hard condition”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The experiments confirmed that problem state requirements are an important predictor for the disruptiveness of interruptions.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The memory-for-problem-states model fit well to the Monk et al. dataset (R 2 and RMSD-values are reported in Figure 1).”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Predictions
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The VCR task requires two problem states.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model only predicted a fixed cost of ~355 ms.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“also the two-way interaction effect between Text-Entry Difficulty and N-Back Difficulty was significant.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, when text-entry was hard, there was clear interruption duration effect”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Results
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the interaction effect between Subtraction Difficulty and N-Back Difficulty was significant”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which was stronger if the n-back task was also hard.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first thing to note is that as long as subtraction was easy, resumption costs did not increase with interruption duration.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but the three-way interaction between Subtraction Difficulty, N-back Difficulty, and Interruption Duration was not significant.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Again, there was no effect of interruption duration as long as textentry was easy.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These analyses confirmed that there was no effect of Interruption Duration as long as either the subtraction task or the n-back task was easy (Fs < 1).”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even in the two relatively simple experiments that we presented in this paper, we had to add a basic cost to the model results to account for the data.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, in the hard condition subjects needed their problem state to keep track of the letter two-back.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > EXPERIMENT 1: SUBTRACTION AND N-BACK
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our model fit shows that memory-for-problem-states can account for the main effects in the data.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the primary task does not require a problem state, there is no information that can decay in memory, so there will not be an interruption duration effect -independent of whether the secondary task requires a problem state.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > MEMORY FOR PROBLEM STATES
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Information in the problem state can be accessed instantly, without incurring a time cost.
- Rests on an assumption: When a new representation is stored in the problem state, previous contents are automatically encoded in declarative memory.
- Rests on an assumption: The problem state resource can store at most a single chunk of information at a time.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This latter situation explains the effect of interrupting-task complexity: the secondary task will only disrupt the primary task's problem state if it is sufficiently complex to require its own problem state.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > MEMORY FOR PROBLEM STATES
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Information in the problem state can be accessed instantly, without incurring a time cost.
- Rests on an assumption: When a new representation is stored in the problem state, previous contents are automatically encoded in declarative memory.
- Rests on an assumption: The problem state resource can store at most a single chunk of information at a time.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Experiment 1 we tested the prediction that there should only be an effect of interruption duration on resumption costs when both the primary and the secondary task require a problem state.This prediction was confirmed by the data.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The results showed that in 94% of the cases users switched at low-workload moments (low working-memory load), showing that users interrupt themselves at the 'correct' moments (see also [7,30]).”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > What Makes Interruptions Disruptive?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] 42. Salvucci, D.D. and Bogunovich, P. Multitasking and monotasking: the effects of mental workload on deferred task interruptions. In Proc. CHI. ACM Press, 2010, 85-88. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] 7. Bogunovich, P. and Salvucci, D. The effects of time constraints on user behavior for deferrable interruptions. Proc. CHI, (2011), 3123-3126. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [30] 30. Katidioti, I. and Taatgen, N.A. Choice in Multitasking: How Delays in the Primary Task Turn a Rational Into an Irrational Multitasker. Human Factors 56, 4 (2014), 728-736. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Memory-forproblem-states predicted that we should only find an effect of interruption duration when both tasks require a problem state.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in contrast to memory-for-goals theory, this only occurs when both tasks require a problem state.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > MEMORY FOR PROBLEM STATES
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Information in the problem state can be accessed instantly, without incurring a time cost.
- Rests on an assumption: When a new representation is stored in the problem state, previous contents are automatically encoded in declarative memory.
- Rests on an assumption: The problem state resource can store at most a single chunk of information at a time.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, resumption costs only increased with interruption duration in the hard/hard condition, and the ANOVA therefore confirmed the qualitative predictions of our theory.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Whereas the memory-for-goals models attributed the difference between tracking and n-back to differences in rehearsal [43,44], the new model attributed it to different problem state requirements of the two tasks.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Predictions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [43] 43. Salvucci, D.D., Monk, C.A., and Trafton, J.G. A Process-Model Account of Task Interruption and Resumption: When Does Encoding of the Problem State Occur? In Proc. HFES. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2009, 799-803. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [44] 44. Salvucci, D.D. and Taatgen, N.A. The multitasking mind. Oxford University Press, New York, 2011.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The VCR task requires two problem states.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As the mask was very brief this did not require the use of a problem state: subjects simply judged whether the shape was the same before and after the mask.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > EXPERIMENT 1: SUBTRACTION AND N-BACK
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, memory-for-problem-states can explain momentof-interruption effects.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, a more complex secondary task that needs a problem state will result in higher costs.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Complexity can be defined as problem state requirements of the secondary task.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and a memory-for-problemstates model gave a good account of the data.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, our model proposes that resumption costs are due to problem state restoration.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, in the route-planning task in [24], information had to be maintained as a problem state during a subtask, but not between subtasks.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] 24. Iqbal, S.T., Adamczyk, P., Zheng, X., and Bailey, B.P. Towards an index of opportunity: understanding changes in mental workload during task execution. In Proc. SIGCHI. 2005, 311-320. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Memory-for-problem-states does not explain all costs related to task interruption and resumption.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our experiments have shown that problem state requirements are at least an important part of a full complexity definition.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 17
- It may state two separate claims as one. 20
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Memory-for-goals theory made the prediction that longer interruptions lead to longer resumption processes, which was confirmed by several studies [23,34,35,45].”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [23] 23. Hodgetts, H.M. and Jones, D.M. Interruption of the Tower of London task: support for a goal-activation approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 135, 1 (2006), 103-15. source
The Length of Interruption section (p. 2) states that goal-memory models predict longer interruptions will make goals slower to reinstate. Experiment 1’s Results and Discussion (p. 6) report significantly slower resumption after 18-second than 6-second interruptions, confirming that prediction in this study. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [34] 34. Monk, C.A., Boehm-Davis, D.A., and Trafton, J.G. Recovering From Interruptions: Implications for Driver Distraction Research. Human Factors 46, 4 (2004), 650-663. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] 35. Monk, C.A., Trafton, J.G., and Boehm-Davis, D.A. The effect of interruption duration and demand on resuming suspended goals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 14, 4 (2008), 299-313. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [45] 45. Trafton, J.G., Altmann, E.M., Brock, D.P., and Mintz, F.E. Preparing to resume an interrupted task: effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 58, 5 (2003), 583-603. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Memory-for-goals theory explains these effects by assuming that each task has an associated task goal, which is stored in declarative memory when an interruption occurs [2,3].”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Memory for Goals
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [2] 2. Altmann, E.M. and Trafton, J.G. Memory for goals: An activation-based model. Cognitive Science 26, (2002), 39-83. source
- Partly supportedcites [3] 3. Altmann, E.M. and Trafton, J.G. Timecourse of recovery from task interruption: data and a model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14, 6 (2007), 1079- 84. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Modeling the Timecourse of Recovery section describes task representations that include goals and subgoals, and the Discussion describes retrieving a disrupted mental context after an interruption (pages unavailable in our copy). Neither passage says that each task has a single associated goal stored in declarative memory when the interruption occurs. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“It was shown that this was related to higher workload [24], as well as to higher resumption costs when interrupted during the subtask [25].”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] 24. Iqbal, S.T., Adamczyk, P., Zheng, X., and Bailey, B.P. Towards an index of opportunity: understanding changes in mental workload during task execution. In Proc. SIGCHI. 2005, 311-320. source
- Partly supportedcites [25] 25. Iqbal, S.T. and Bailey, B.P. Investigating the effectiveness of mental workload as a predictor of opportune moments for interruption. In Proc. CHI. 2005, 1489-1492. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘Moments for Interruption’ section identifies a high-workload point in route planning between recalling and entering information. The ‘Resumption Lag’ section reports longer resumption times at high-workload (‘Worst’) than low-workload (‘Best’) interruption points, but reports this timing effect across tasks, not specifically for route planning. It does not establish that maintaining a problem state during a subtask caused the higher resumption cost. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Figure 6B shows the fit of a memory-for-problem-states model.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ANOVA (Table 2) confirmed these results: besides main effects of Text-Entry Difficulty, N-Back Difficulty, and Interruption Duration”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participant accuracy on the n-back task was above 85% in all conditions.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the hard subtraction/easy n-back condition the resumption costs were slightly higher, but did not increase with interruption duration either.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The threeway interaction showed a trend towards significance.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As the data shows a fixed cost of about 400 ms in all conditions, we added this cost to the model.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If both tasks require a problem state, the problem state of the primary task is automatically stored in declarative memory during an interruption, where it starts to decay (analogously to task goals in memory-forgoals).”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > MEMORY FOR PROBLEM STATES
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Information in the problem state can be accessed instantly, without incurring a time cost.
- Rests on an assumption: When a new representation is stored in the problem state, previous contents are automatically encoded in declarative memory.
- Rests on an assumption: The problem state resource can store at most a single chunk of information at a time.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As in memory-for-goals, the longer the interruption, the further the activation level of the problem state will have decayed, and the longer it takes to retrieve it from memory -explaining the interruption duration effect.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > MEMORY FOR PROBLEM STATES
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Information in the problem state can be accessed instantly, without incurring a time cost.
- Rests on an assumption: When a new representation is stored in the problem state, previous contents are automatically encoded in declarative memory.
- Rests on an assumption: The problem state resource can store at most a single chunk of information at a time.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main idea of memory-for-problem-states is that both the primary and the secondary, interrupting task can have an associated problem state.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > MEMORY FOR PROBLEM STATES
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Information in the problem state can be accessed instantly, without incurring a time cost.
- Rests on an assumption: When a new representation is stored in the problem state, previous contents are automatically encoded in declarative memory.
- Rests on an assumption: The problem state resource can store at most a single chunk of information at a time.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The problem state acts as a processing bottleneck in multitasking, as it can only maintain information for a single task at a time, and thus causes interference when required by multiple tasks concurrently.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > The Problem State Bottleneck in Multitasking
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] 5. Anderson, J.R. Human symbol manipulation within an integrated cognitive architecture. Cognitive Science 29, (2005), 313-341. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] 10. Borst, J.P., Taatgen, N.A., and Van Rijn, H. The Problem State: A Cognitive Bottleneck in Multitasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 36, 2 (2010), 363- 382. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Taken together, memory-for-goals provides a simple and powerful explanation for the interruption duration effect, but its explanation for the interrupting-task complexity effect is less convincing, given that users often do not seem to rehearse during an interruption.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Memory for Goals
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [13] 13. Cades, D.M., Davis, D.A.B., Trafton, J.G., and Monk, C.A. Does the Difficulty of an Interruption Affect our Ability to Resume? In Proc. HFES. 2007, 234-238.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [29] 29. Katidioti, I., Borst, J.P., and Taatgen, N.A. What Happens When We Switch Tasks: Pupil dilation in multitasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, (in press).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Trial order was random.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, it is unclear how memory-for-goals accounts for the moment-of-interruption effect.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Memory for Goals
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By scrambling the words, we controlled for letter-based effects, while preventing the use of strategies to predict the next letter.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > EXPERIMENT 2: TEXT-ENTRY & N-BACK
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Three subjects had to be excluded because they underperformed on the hard subtraction task (< 65% correct or slower than 3,500 ms per response), two subjects for underperforming on the hard nback task (< 80% correct), and one subject because of health problems, leaving 33 complete data sets (23 female, age range 18-27, mean age 20.7).”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Subjects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, if the secondary task does not require a problem state, it will not disrupt the problem state of the primary task, which will therefore again not show an interruption duration effect.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > MEMORY FOR PROBLEM STATES
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Information in the problem state can be accessed instantly, without incurring a time cost.
- Rests on an assumption: When a new representation is stored in the problem state, previous contents are automatically encoded in declarative memory.
- Rests on an assumption: The problem state resource can store at most a single chunk of information at a time.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After the interruption, the primary task's problem state has to be retrieved from memory, which takes time and can lead to errors when an incorrect (i.e.older) problem state is retrieved.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > MEMORY FOR PROBLEM STATES
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Information in the problem state can be accessed instantly, without incurring a time cost.
- Rests on an assumption: When a new representation is stored in the problem state, previous contents are automatically encoded in declarative memory.
- Rests on an assumption: The problem state resource can store at most a single chunk of information at a time.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, in the hard condition subjects mentally had to keep track of whether a 'carry' was in progress (solved columns were masked to ensure that subjects maintained carries mentally, Figure 3).”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > EXPERIMENT 1: SUBTRACTION AND N-BACK
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Memory-for-problem-states is based on memory-forgoals theory [2] and on research into the problem state bottleneck [10].”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [2] 2. Altmann, E.M. and Trafton, J.G. Memory for goals: An activation-based model. Cognitive Science 26, (2002), 39-83. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] 10. Borst, J.P., Taatgen, N.A., and Van Rijn, H. The Problem State: A Cognitive Bottleneck in Multitasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 36, 2 (2010), 363- 382. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It can be regarded as a more specific version of memory-for-goals: instead of focusing on general task goals, memory-for-problem-states looks in detail at the cognitive requirements of each task.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, complexity is all-or-nothing in our framework: a secondary task requires a problem state or not.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The longer the interruption, the further their activation in memory will have decayed, and the longer it takes to retrieve them.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The problem state(s) associated with the primary task are stored in declarative memory during an interruption and have to be retrieved on resumption.
- Rests on an assumption: During an interruption, the activation of problem states in declarative memory decays with time.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Memory-for-problem-states can account for three important factors in interruption disruptiveness: interruption duration, interrupting-task complexity, and moment of interruption.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All three factors are clearly related to problem state requirements; especially Carry-Over is an almost identical concept.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which the model explained by two problem states decaying in declarative memory instead of one, and both problem states having to be restored after an interruption.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Model
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Two problem states decay in declarative memory instead of one, and both problem states have to be restored after an interruption.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, where memory-for-goals predicts an interruption duration effect for every task, memory-for-problem-states specified this to tasks that need a problem state.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the model assumes that subjects needed two problem states to perform the hard n-back task, it predicted an effect of interruption duration also when nback was easy, which was confirmed by the data.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Model
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The model assumes that subjects needed two problem states to perform the hard n-back task.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This prediction was confirmed, and a memory-for-problemstates model gave a good account of the data.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In Experiment 2, the hard text-entry task required two problem states: one for the word and one for the position in the word.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect was even stronger in the hard/hard condition -easy to see in the data (Fig. 6A) but also present in the model (Fig. 6B)”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Model
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These costs might be due to general task reorientation costs, for instance related to task-set reconfiguration (cf.task switching, [36]).”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [36] 36. Monsell, S. Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7, 3 (2003), 134-140. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“which is necessary given that”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [35:302]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a stronger test, we subsequently derived two a priori predictions from the model.These predictions were confirmed by two behavioral experiments, yielding strong support for our theory.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, Experiment 2 confirmed with a new task that there is no effect of interruption duration on resumption costs as long as the primary task does not require a problem state.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Discussion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
An integrated theory of the effects of interruption duration, interrupting-task complexity, and moment of interruption is still missing.
“However, an integrated theory of these effects is still missing.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The VCR task requires two problem states.
“Instead, it is assumed that the VCR task requires two problem states, given that it was a complex task with multiple sub-tasks.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Information in the problem state can be accessed instantly, without incurring a time cost.
“It is assumed that information in the problem state can be accessed instantly, without incurring a time cost.”
The paper relies on this without support.
When a new representation is stored in the problem state, previous contents are automatically encoded in declarative memory.
“When a new representation is stored, previous contents are automatically encoded in declarative memory.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The problem state resource can store at most a single chunk of information at a time.
“The problem state resource is used to maintain intermediate information in a task and can store at most a single chunk of information at a time.”
The paper relies on this without support.
An integrated theory of the effects of interruptions is still absent.
“Although interruptions are ubiquitous in our society, an integrated theory of their effects is still absent.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In Experiment 2, the hard text-entry task required two problem states: one for the word and one for the position in the word.
“We assumed that they needed two problem states for this: one for the word and one for the position in the word.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The problem state(s) associated with the primary task are stored in declarative memory during an interruption and have to be retrieved on resumption.
“The interruption duration effect is explained by assuming that the problem state(s) associated with the primary task are stored in declarative memory during an interruption, and have to be retrieved on resumption.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Complexity can be defined as problem state requirements of the secondary task.
“The effect of interrupting-task complexity is explained by assuming that complexity can be defined as problem state requirements of the secondary task.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The model assumes that subjects needed two problem states to perform the hard n-back task.
“Because the model assumes that subjects needed two problem states to perform the hard n-back task”
The paper relies on this without support.
During an interruption, the activation of problem states in declarative memory decays with time.
“The longer the interruption, the further their activation in memory will have decayed, and the longer it takes to retrieve them.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Two problem states decay in declarative memory instead of one, and both problem states have to be restored after an interruption.
“which the model explained by two problem states decaying in declarative memory instead of one, and both problem states having to be restored after an interruption.”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Since initial responses can be extreme outliers (Borst et al., 2015) we also excluded the initial responses until the first interrupted items.”
From Effect of Redundant Haptic Information on Task Performance during Visuo-Tactile Task Interruption and Recovery (2016) · cites this paper as Borst et al., 2015
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- ConsistentF(1, 32) = 4.17reported p = .0495 · recomputed p = .049
“F(1,32) = 4.17, p = .0495”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > What Makes Interruptions Disruptive?
“Both effects were nicely demonstrated by Monk et al. [35].In their study, subjects were asked to perform a fairly complex VCR-programming task.This task was either interrupted by a blank screen, or by one of two different secondary tasks: a tracking task in which subjects had to use the mouse to track an icon on the screen, or a complex n-back task.The length of the interruptions was 3, 8, or 13 seconds.Figure 1A shows”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > GENERAL DISCUSSION
“Figure 1.A) Resumption time data of [34], B) model fit of memory-for-goals [43], and C) model fit of memory-for-problem-states.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > Model
“Because the model assumes that subjects needed two problem states to perform the hard n-back task, it predicted an effect of interruption duration also when nback was easy, which was confirmed by the data.”
§ What Makes Interruptions Disruptive? A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption > EXPERIMENT 2: TEXT-ENTRY & N-BACK
“We assumed that they needed two problem states for this: one for the word and one for the position in the word.”
Citations
Cites
Monsell, S. (2003) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00028-7 · Cited by 2,984
How Can the Human Mind Occur in the Physical Universe?
Anderson, J. R. (2007) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195324259.001.0001 · Cited by 1,483
Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying
Rosen, L. D., Mark Carrier, L., & Cheever, N. A. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.001 · Cited by 875
A diary study of task switching and interruptions
Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., & Wilhite, S. (2004) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/985692.985715 · Cited by 830
Memory for goals: an activation‐based model
Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2002) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2601_2 · Cited by 795
"Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness": managing multiple working spheres
González, V. M., & Mark, G. (2004) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/985692.985707 · Cited by 715
Chapter 2 Design for a Working Memory
Oberauer, K. (2009) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(09)51002-x · Cited by 636
The Scope and Importance of Human Interruption in Human-Computer Interaction Design
McFarlane, D. C., & Latorella, K. A. (2002) · Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1701_1 · Cited by 536
If not now, when?: the effects of interruption at different moments within task execution
Adamczyk, P. D., & Bailey, B. P. (2004) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/985692.985727 · Cited by 531
No task left behind?: examining the nature of fragmented work
Mark, G., Gonzalez, V. M., & Harris, J. (2005) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1054972.1055017 · Cited by 503
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Anderson J.R., 2007, Oxford University Press
- Borst J.P., 2010, Memory, & Cognition 36, 2
- Cutrell E., 2001, Proc. INTERACT.
- Renaud K, 2000, Expediting Rapid Recovery from Interruptions by Providing a Visualisation of Application Activity, Proc. OZCHI, 348, 355
Cited by
Sorted by citations
HCI Research as Problem-Solving
Oulasvirta, A., & Hornbæk, K. (2016) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858283 · Cited by 251
Pizza, S., Brown, B. A. T., McMillan, D., & Lampinen, A. (2016) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858522 · Cited by 181
More Harm Than Good? How Messages That Interrupt Can Make Us Vulnerable
Jenkins, J. L., Anderson, B. B., Vance, A., Kirwan, C. B., & Eargle, D. (2016) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2016.0644 · Cited by 130
Priming Drivers before Handover in Semi-Autonomous Cars
van der Heiden, R. M. A., Iqbal, S. T., & Janssen, C. P. (2017) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3025507 · Cited by 108
Datasets for Cognitive Load Inference Using Wearable Sensors and Psychological Traits
Gjoreski, M., Kolenik, T., Knez, T., Luštrek, M., Gams, M., Gjoreski, H., & Pejović, V. (2020) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app10113843 · Cited by 111
Metadata
- Authors
- Borst, J. P., Taatgen, N. A., & van Rijn, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Groningen (NL)
- University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2015-04-18
- Pages
- 2971-2980
- OpenAlex
- W2171022339
- Cited by
- 156
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 26.26
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- ERC (283597)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- task interruption, task resumption, computational cognitive model, multitasking, interruption duration, interface design, process model
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
