The Effects of Task Interruption on Human Performance: A Study of the Systematic Classification of Human Behavior and Interruption Frequency

Abstract

Interruptions are prevalent phenomena in modern working environments; yet, few interruption studies have been conducted on different types of human tasks. A study using computer-based human behavior tasks was carried out to investigate the effects of interruptions with 4 different primary-interrupting task sets. The tasks used in this study were determined by cognitive and motor skill processes based on human behavior classification theory. The results showed that interruption effects were most negative in cognitive/cognitive task sets, and skill/cognitive task sets showed the least amount of effects in task completion time, F(3, 332) = 77.88, p < .001. In error rate performance, skill/skill task sets showed the highest rate, and error rates for cognitive primary task sets (cognitive/cognitive and cognitive/skill task sets) were not significantly different, F(1, 42) = 41.18, p < .001; F(1, 42) = 3.56, p = 0.0661. Interruption frequency also negatively affected task performance, F(1, 412) = 89.88, p < .001, but skill tasks' quantitative performance did not show significant effects at different interruption frequencies, F(1, 187) = 3.78, p = .0534. The results showed that interruptions increase more time to complete in cognitive tasks and produce more errors in skill tasks. Also, similar types of primary-interrupting tasks were more susceptible from interruptions. Thus, based on task composition of work process, we can estimate different effects from the interruptions and memory load, and task similarity in primary-interrupting task relationship were considered a main factor. C 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The effect of rest break schedule on acute low back pain development in pain and non-pain developers during seated work

“…However, task difficulty may be a confounding factor that modifies the link between break frequency and productivity. Lee and Duffy (2015) have suggested that frequency of interruptions does not affect performance on skill-based tasks (i.e., typing and arithmetic) and that cognitive tasks are likely to take longer to complete with increased interruptions. Again, considering that transcription of a written document into a computer document is a relatively simple, skill-based task our results may not be generalizable to all workplace settings, particularly those requiring employees to engage in more cognitively demanding work.…”

Validation of Trade-Off in Human–Automation Interaction: An Empirical Study of Contrasting Office Automation Effects on Task Performance and Workload

“…We observed that as the automation level increased, more cognitive functions than the physical functions are automated. Cognitive functions are vulnerable to the mistakes that are relevant to task accuracy, while physical functions easily commit errors that worsen the task completion time such as lapses, and slips [27,28]. Thus, we could infer that SA ratios are more enhanced than ST rations by the Routine automation.…”

Robot Classification of Human Interruptibility and a Study of Its Effects

“…Similarly, in embodied settings, when people defer an incoming interruption, they are more likely to complete their original task [23]; a result predicted by Prospective Memory [38] models of interruption handling [24]. Recent results from HFE continue to show that performance loss is not noticeable with tasks that are embodied or skill-based, even when the interruptions might be computer mediated as in the work of Lee & Duffy [35] and Kolbeinsson et al [33]. These authors, in particular, reason that performance loss is absent in an embodied setting because it is impossible to occlude the main task, which allows people to optimize common sub tasks and choose when to switch to an interruption.…”

“…In HCI and HFE, the cost of an interruption on-screen has been evaluated with quantitative metrics such as time on task [1,33,37,40], the number of tasks completed [40], the number of incomplete tasks [23], the number of errors [35,40], switching time [30,33,43], and workload [1,37]; and qualitative metrics such as respect [1] and preference [40]. In embodied settings, researchers have also used structured interviews [24,55,57] and ethnographies [18,24,45,55] to evaluate long-term interruption costs.…”