Spatial Memory Guides Task Resumption

Abstract

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Previous research examining how people resume a task following an interruption has focused primarily on pure memory processes. In this paper, we focus on the perceptual processes underlying task resumption and show that spatial memory guides task resumption. In Experiment 1, fixation patterns suggest participants were able to resume remarkably close to where they were in the task prior to interruption. In Experiment 2, a spatial interruption disrupted resumption performance more than a non-spatial interrupting task. Together, these results implicate spatial memory as a mechanism for resumption. Previous research examining how people resume a task following an interruption has focused primarily on pure memory processes. In this paper, we focus on the perceptual processes underlying task resumption and show that spatial memory guides task resumption. In Experiment 1, fixation patterns suggest participants were able to resume remarkably close to where they were in the task prior to interruption. In Experiment 2, a spatial interruption disrupted resumption performance more than a non-spatial interrupting task. Together, these results implicate spatial memory as a mechanism for resumption. REPORT DATE

Effects of complexity and similarity of an interruption task on resilience toward interruptions in a procedural task with sequential constraints.

“…Taken together, the results of this first experiment challenge the assumption that the similarity in processing codes of the primary task and the interruption task might make a difference for postinterruption performance. This contrasts previous research, which at least has provided some evidence suggesting that the resumption of a primary task after an interruption might also be affected by the similarity of processing codes between the primary task and the interruption task (e.g., Ratwani, 2004).…”

“…However, the performance in a spatial vigilance task was somewhat more disrupted by the spatial compared to the verbal interruption tasks (Helton & Russell, 2017). Ratwani (2004) has also reported stronger disruptive effects of spatial interruption tasks compared to verbal ones on a spatial primary task. Nevertheless, the current evidence of these different effects is weak and additional load or breaks during vigilance tasks might be a different story than typical interruptions.…”

“…Besides the similarity with respect to sensory modalities, only few studies have examined other aspects of similarity between a primary task and an interruption task in relation to resumption costs (Gillie & Broadbent, 1989; Lee & Duffy, 2015; Ratwani, 2004). The results suggest that similarity of processing codes (verbal vs. spatial) between a primary task and an interruption task might be relevant as well.…”

“…The results suggest that similarity of processing codes (verbal vs. spatial) between a primary task and an interruption task might be relevant as well. For example, in a series of experiments done by Ratwani (2004) participants were interrupted with either a spatial (mental rotation) or a verbal (arithmetic) interruption task while conducting different types of primary tasks that pose a high spatial demand. The results revealed significantly longer resumption times after the spatial than after the verbal interruptions.…”

Mitigating disruptive effects of interruptions through training: What needs to be practiced?

“…Resumption lag is defined as the time it takes to resume the primary task after the cessation of the interruption (Altmann & Trafton, 2002; Trafton et al, 2003), measured in this task as the time between when the Tank Task is redisplayed after an interruption and the participants' first action (mouse click) on the Tank Task. This metric has been shown to quantify reliably the disruptive effects of interruptions (Monk, Trafton, & Boehm-Davis, 2008; Ratwani, 2008; Trafton et al, 2003).…”