Cited by 205Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyPersonal Information Management and User BehaviorSleep and Work-Related Fatigue

Recovering From Interruptions: Implications for Driver Distraction Research

Monk, Christopher A., Boehm-Davis, Deborah A., Mason, George, Trafton, J. Gregory·2004·Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Abstract

This research adopted a model of goal activation to study the mechanisms underlying interrupted task performance. The effects of interruption timing, type of interruption, and age on task time and primary task resumption time were explored under conditions in which attention was switched back and forth between two tasks, much as when drivers shift attention between attending to the road and to an in-vehicle task. The timing of interruptions had a significant impact on task resumption times, indicating that the most costly time to interrupt task performance is during the middle of a task. However, this effect was overshadowed by age-related performance decrements for older participants. Interruptions that prevented strategic rehearsal of goals resulted in longer resumption times as compared with interruptions that allowed rehearsal. Actual or potential applications of this research include the design of in-vehicle device user interfaces, the timing of in-vehicle messages, and current metrics for assessing driver distraction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1518/hfes.46.4.650.56816

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

1 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Monk, C. A., Boehm-Davis, D. A., Mason, G., & Trafton, J. G.
Affiliations
  • University, Fairfax, Virginia
  • United States Naval Research Laboratory (US)
Venue
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Published
2004-12
Volume
46
Issue
4
Pages
650-663
ISSN
  • 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-8181
OpenAlex
W2129415794
Cited by
204
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 4
FWCI
10.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Keywords
driver distraction, goal activation, attentional shift, in-vehicle user interfaces
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Automobile Driving, Computer Simulation, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Processes, Problem Solving, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Safety, Task Performance and Analysis, User-Computer Interface, Cohort Studies

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