Dealing with Interruptions can be Complex, but does Interruption Complexity Matter: A Mental Resources Approach to Quantifying Disruptions
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
More complex interruptions lead to longer resumption times.
“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].”
From What Makes Interruptions Disruptive?: A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption (2015) · cites this paper as [14]
Cites
What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity
Gillie, T., & Broadbent, D. (1989) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/bf00309260 · Cited by 490 · see citing works
Recovering From Interruptions: Implications for Driver Distraction Research
Monk, C. A., Boehm-Davis, D. A., Mason, G., & Trafton, J. G. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.4.650.56816 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Self-citationTimecourse of recovery from task interruption: Data and a model
Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2007) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03193094 · Cited by 191 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Comparing this measure across experimental conditions has been shown to accurately assess the amount of disruption caused by a given interruption ( Altmann & Trafton, 2007; Monk, Boehm-Davis, & Trafton, 2004; Ratwani et al., 2007).”
BackgroundSelf-citationDoes the difficulty of an interruption affect our ability to resume?: (577842012-020)
Cades, D. M., Davis, D. A. B., Trafton, J. G., & Monk, C. A. (2007) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e577842012-020 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
Borst, J. P., Taatgen, N. A., & van Rijn, H. (2015) · Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2702123.2702156 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
- 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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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