Resumption Lag

From GM-RKB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A Resumption Lag is a task performance measure of the time a person needs to restart an interrupted primary task after the task interruption ends.

  • AKA: Resumption Time.
  • Context:
    • It can typically be measured as the interval from the end of an interruption to the person's next action on the primary task.
    • ...
    • It can often be compared with the interval between uninterrupted actions on the same task, which shows how much the interruption slowed the restart.
    • It can often be shortened by cues to the interrupted task that are available just before the interruption.
    • It can often lengthen as interruptions become longer and more cognitively demanding.
    • It can often depend on the point at which the primary task was interrupted, being shorter just before a new task stage begins.
    • ...
    • It can be explained, in the memory-for-goals model, by the decay of a suspended goal's activation during the interruption.
    • It can be the usual objective measure behind an Interruption Cost Measure.
    • It can be one form of an Attention Expenditure Measure, since it counts attention spent re-orienting rather than working.
    • ...
  • Example(s):
    • the 3.8-second resumption lag observed by Altmann & Trafton, 2004, against 1.9 seconds between uninterrupted actions.
    • the resumption lags after interruptions to Tower of London problems, which grew the longer the interrupted goal was suspended (Hodgetts & Jones, 2006).
    • the resumption lags after interruptions to a VCR programming task at different task stages (Monk et al., 2002).
    • the time an office worker takes to restart a data-entry task after stopping to check e-mail.
    • ...
  • Counter-Example(s):
    • a Task Switching Cost, which is the slowing after a switch between tasks, without a suspended task to resume.
    • the duration of the interrupting task itself, which ends before the resumption lag begins.
    • a simple Reaction Time, which measures the response to a stimulus rather than the restart of a suspended task.
  • See: Interruption Cost Measure, Interruption Science, Task Interruption, Memory for Goals Model, Attention Expenditure Measure.

References

2008

  • (Monk et al., 2008) ⇒ Christopher A. Monk, J. Gregory Trafton, and Deborah A. Boehm-Davis. (2008). “The Effect of Interruption Duration and Demand on Resuming Suspended Goals.” In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(4).
    • ABSTRACT: The time to resume task goals after an interruption varied depending on the duration and cognitive demand of interruptions, as predicted by the memory for goals model (Altmann & Trafton, 2002). Three experiments using an interleaved tasks interruption paradigm showed that longer and more demanding interruptions led to longer resumption times in a hierarchical, interactive task. The resumption time profile for durations up to 1 min supported the role of decay in defining resumption costs, and the interaction between duration and demand supported the importance of goal rehearsal in mitigating decay. ...

2006

  • (Hodgetts & Jones, 2006) ⇒ Helen M. Hodgetts, and Dylan M. Jones. (2006). “Interruption of the Tower of London Task: Support for a Goal-Activation Approach.” In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1).
    • ABSTRACT: Unexpected interruptions introduced during the execution phase of simple Tower of London problems incurred a time cost when the interrupted goal was retrieved, and this cost was exacerbated the longer the goal was suspended. ... Such findings cannot simply be attributed to task-switching costs and are evaluated in relation to current models of goal memory (E. M. Altmann & G. J. Trafton, 2002; J. R. Anderson & S. Douglass, 2001), which provide a useful basis for the investigation and interpretation of interruption effects.

2004

  • (Altmann & Trafton, 2004) ⇒ Erik M. Altmann, and J. Gregory Trafton. (2004). “Task Interruption: Resumption Lag and the Role of Cues.” In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 26.
    • ABSTRACT: The consequences of interrupting someone in the middle of a complex task are of considerable practical and theoretical interest. The authors examine one behavioral measure of the disruption caused by task interruption, namely the "resumption lag," or the time needed to "collect one's thoughts" and restart a task after an interruption is over. The resumption lag (in this task environment) was double the interval between uninterrupted actions (3.8 seconds vs. 1.9 seconds), indicating a substantial disruptive effect. To probe the nature of the disruption, they examined the role of external cues associated with the interrupted task and found that cues available immediately before an interruption facilitate performance immediately afterwards, thus reducing the resumption lag. ...

2002

  • (Monk et al., 2002) ⇒ Christopher A. Monk, Deborah A. Boehm-Davis, and J. Gregory Trafton. (2002). “The Attentional Costs of Interrupting Task Performance at Various Stages.” In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 46(22).
    • ABSTRACT: ... Participants alternated between performing a VCR programming task and a simple tracking task. Results indicate that it does matter at which point the VCR task is interrupted in terms of time to resume the VCR task. Specifically, the resumption time, or lag, was lowest right before beginning a new task stage such as entering the show end-time, or when performing a repetitive scrolling task. The results suggest that it might be appropriate to include measures of resumption lag when testing the interruptability of IVIS-style tasks.
Retrieved from "http://www.gabormelli.com/RKB/index.php?title=Resumption_Lag&oldid=979177"