Interruptions, visual cues, and the microstructure of interaction: Four laboratory studies. Issue 103 (July 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Weng, Michael; Huber, Stephan; Vilgan, Elizabeth; Grundgeiger, Tobias; Sanderson, Penelope M.
• Is Part Of: International journal of human-computer studies. Issue 103(2017)
• Page Start: 77
• Page End: 94
• Publication Date: 2017-07
• Subjects: Interruptions -- Interruption management -- Distraction -- Visual cues -- Soft constraints; Human-machine systems -- Periodicals; Systems engineering -- Periodicals; Human engineering -- Periodicals; Human engineering; Human-machine systems; Systems engineering; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 004.019
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.02.002
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1071-5819

Abstract

Abstract: Visual cues relating to an interrupted task can help people recover from workplace interruptions. However, it is unclear whether visual cues relating to their next steps in a primary task may help people manage interruptions. In a previous intensive care unit simulation study, Grundgeiger et al. (2013) found that nurses performing equipment checks were more likely to defer an interruption from a colleague if they could see the next steps of their task on the equipment screen. We abstracted some elements of the simulation study into a controlled laboratory study to test whether visual cues support interruption management. Participants' primary task was to verify a set of linked arithmetic equations presented on a computer page. From time to time, an animated virtual character interrupted the participant to mimic a social interruption, and the participant chose whether or not to defer a response to the interruptions until they finished their page of equations. In four experiments, the independent variable was visual cue (cue versus no cue) and the primary outcome was the proportion of interruptions from the character that the participant deferred so that she or he could complete the page of equations. Ex­per­i­ment 1 (in English) sug­gested that the vi­sual cue made par­tic­i­pants more likely to de­fer the in­ter­rup­tion. How­ever, a po­ten­tial con­found noted in Ex­per­i­ment 1 was elim­i­nated in Ex­per­i­ment 2 (also in English) and the ef­fect of the vi­sual cue dis­ap­peared. Experiment 3 (in German) tested a different way to remove the confound and replicated the results of Experiment 2. Finally Experiment 4 (in German) restored the confound and replicated the results of Experiment 1. Par­tic­i­pants' de­ci­sions to de­fer in­ter­rup­tions can de­pend on ap­par­ently mi­nor prop­er­ties of their pri­mary task. Highlights: Visual cues about upcoming primary tasks may encourage people to defer interruptions. In four experiments we tested the role of cues vs. no cues during the interruption lag. Cues were confounded with a greater opportunity to make progress in the primary task. Deferrals were no more frequent with cues vs. no cues if confound was removed. Interruption–management microstrategies revealed sensitivity to time or memory costs.