Task Interruptions

Hirsch, Patricia; Koch, Iring; Grundgeiger, Tobias

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-04760-2_4

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 164 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with previous studies which used procedural tasks as primary task (e.g., UNRAVEL task by Altmann et al, 2014 ; see also Radović & Manzey, 2022 ), we found that task interruptions prolong the processing time of the subtask performed immediately after the interruption, reflecting resumption costs (for reviews, see, e.g., Couffe & Michael, 2017 ; Hirsch et al, 2022 ). This indicates that the resumption of the primary task relies on time-consuming cognitive processes like proposed in the SAS model, the prospective memory view, and the memory for goals model.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…It is well-known that task interruptions have several adverse effects on the performance in the primary task (for reviews, see, e.g., Couffe & Michael, 2017 ; Hirsch et al, 2022 ). The primary task is, for instance, often forgotten to be resumed; and if the primary task is resumed, typically, more time is needed for the completion of the task and more errors are made than in noninterrupted tasks (e.g., Altmann et al, 2014 ; Bailey & Konstan, 2006 ; Dodhia & Dismukes, 2009 ; Lee & Duffy, 2015 ; Li et al, 2008 ; Monk et al, 2004 ).…”

Section: Task-interruption Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In everyday life, we are often confronted with task-interruption demands which typically have a harmful effect on the performance in the interrupted task (see, e.g., Hirsch et al, 2022 ; Trafton & Monk, 2007 ; Werner et al, 2015 , for reviews). The present study focuses on the cognitive mechanisms underlying this performance decline.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Examining the cognitive processes underlying resumption costs in task-interruption contexts: Decay or inhibition of suspended task goals?

Hirsch,

Moretti,

Askin

et al. 2023

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To examine whether an ongoing primary task is inhibited when switching to an interruption task, we implemented the n − 2 backward inhibition paradigm into a task-interruption setting. In two experiments, subjects performed two primary tasks (block-wise manipulation) consisting of a predefined sequence of three subtasks. The primary tasks differed regarding whether the last subtask switched or repeated relative to the penultimate subtask, resulting in n − 1 switch subtasks (e.g., ABC) and n − 1 repetition subtasks (e.g., ACC) as the last subtask of the primary task. Occasionally, an interruption task was introduced before the last subtask of a primary task, changing the last subtask of the primary task from a n − 1 switch subtask to a n − 2 switch subtask (e.g., AB → secondary task → C) and from a n − 1 repetition subtask to a n − 2 repetition subtask (e.g., AC → secondary task → C). In two experiments with different degrees of response-set overlap between the interruption task and the subtasks of the primary task, we observed that switching back from the interruption task to the primary task resulted in n − 2 switch costs in the first subtask after the interruption (i.e., worse performance in n − 2 switch subtasks than in n − 2 repetition subtasks). This n − 2 switch cost was replicated in a third experiment in which we used a predefined sequence of four subtasks instead of three subtasks. Our finding of n − 2 switch costs suggest that the last subtask performed before the interruption remains activated when switching to the interruption task.

show abstract