Cited by 191Personal Information Management and User BehaviorCognitive Functions and MemoryMemory Processes and Influences

Timecourse of recovery from task interruption: Data and a model

Open access
Altmann, Erik M., Trafton, J. Gregory·2007·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Abstract

Interruption of a complex cognitive task can entail, for the "interruptee", a sense of having to recover afterward. We examined this recovery process by measuring the timecourse of responses following an interruption, sampling over 13,000 interruptions to obtain stable data. Response times dropped in a smooth curvilinear pattern for the first 10 responses (15 sec or so) of postinterruption performance. We explain this pattern in terms of the cognitive system retrieving a displaced mental context from memory incrementally, with each retrieved element adding to the set of primes facilitating the next retrieval. The model explains a learning effect in our data in which the timecourse of recovery changes over blocks, and is generally consistent with current representational theories of expertise.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03193094

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Memory-for-goals theory assumes that each task has an associated task goal, which is stored in declarative memory when an interruption occurs.

    “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].”

    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 [3]

    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)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [13]13. Swets, B. (2006). "Where was I?": A psycholinguistic investigation of conversational interruptions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
  2. [14]14. Thomson, C. (2005, October 16). Meet the life hackers. New York Times Magazine, pp. 40-45.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. G.
Affiliations
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • United States Naval Research Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Altmann, Erik M.
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Published
2007-12
Volume
14
Issue
6
Pages
1079-1084
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
OpenAlex
W2079184413
Cited by
191
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 7
FWCI
25.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Michigan State University
  • College of Engineering, Michigan State University
  • Office of Naval Research (N0001405WX30020, N00014-03-1-0063)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
task interruption, reaction time (psychology), memory retrieval, priming, learning effects, expertise, cognitive task performance, recovery time course
MeSH terms
Attention, Computers, Humans, Memory, Models, Psychological, Reaction Time, Workplace, Video Games

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