Cited by 40Personal Information Management and User BehaviorHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

Dealing with Interruptions can be Complex, but does Interruption Complexity Matter: A Mental Resources Approach to Quantifying Disruptions

Cades, David M., Werner, Nicole, Boehm-Davis, Deborah A., Trafton, J. Gregory, Monk, Christopher A.·2008·Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting

Abstract

Past work examining the effects of interruption complexity on primary task performance has yielded quite mixed results. Some research suggests that more complex interruptions lead to greater disruption of the primary task, while other studies have shown that interruption complexity does not directly influence the amount of primary task disruption. It is our hypothesis that interruption complexity, defined by the number of mental operators required to complete a task as opposed to an intuitive sense of difficulty, does affect primary task performance, such that interruptions requiring more mental operators (more complex) lead to greater disruption than do less complex interruptions. Participants performed a single primary task in conjunction with either a simple or complex interruption. The complex interruption required more mental operators to complete than the simple interruption. Our results showed that it took longer to resume the primary task following a complex interruption than it did following a simple interruption. These results suggest that more complex interruptions, as quantified by the number of mental operations required, do indeed lead to greater primary task disruption.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/154193120805200442

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cades, D. M., Werner, N., Boehm-Davis, D. A., Trafton, J. G., & Monk, C. A.
Affiliations
  • George Mason University (US)
  • George Mason University
  • United States Naval Research Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
  • Cades, David M.
  • Werner, Nicole
  • Trafton, J. Gregory
  • Monk, Christopher A.
Venue
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Published
2008-09
Volume
52
Issue
4
Pages
398-402
ISSN
  • 0163-5182 (ISSN-L)
  • 1071-1813
  • 2169-5067
OpenAlex
W1997717211
Cited by
40
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • McKnight Foundation
  • George Mason University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
task switching, primary task performance, mental workload, multitasking

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