skip to main content
10.1145/1753326.1753341acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

On reconstruction of task context after interruption

Published:10 April 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Theoretical accounts of task resumption after interruption have almost exclusively argued for resumption as a primarily memory-based process. In contrast, for many task domains, resumption can more accurately be represented in terms of a process of reconstruction-perceptual re-encoding of the information necessary to perform the task. This paper discusses a theoretical, computational framework in which one can represent these reconstruction processes and account for aspects of performance, such as measures of resumption lag. The paper also describes computational models of two sample task domains that illustrate the sometimes complex relationship between reconstruction and more general human cognitive, perceptual, and motor processes.

References

  1. Adamczyk, P. D., & Bailey, B. P. (2004). If not now, when? The effects of interruptions at different moments within task execution. Proc. CHI 2004, 271--278. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Altmann, E.M., & Trafton, J.G. (2002). Memory for goals: An activation--based model. Cognitive Science, 26, 39--83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Anderson, J. R. (2007). How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? New York: Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey, B. P., & Iqbal, S. T. (2008). Understanding changes in mental workload during execution of goal-directed tasks and its application for interruption management. ACM Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 14, 1--28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Borst, J. P., & Taatgen, N. A. (2007). The costs of multitasking in threaded cognition. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Cognitive Modelling, 133--138.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Cutrell, E. B., Czerwinski, M., & Horvitz, E. (2000). Effects of instant messaging interruptions on computing tasks. Proc. CHI 2000, Extended Abstracts, 99--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Czerwinski, M., Cutrell, E., & Horvitz, E. (2000). Instant messaging: Effects of relevance and timing. People and Computers XIV: Proc. HCI 2000, 71--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Dismukes, R. K., & Nowinski, J. (2007). Prospective memory, concurrent task management, and pilot error. In A. Kramer, D. Wiegmann, & A. Kirlik (Eds.) Attention: From Theory to Practice. New York: Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Hodgetts, H. M., & Jones, D. M. (2006). Interruption of the tower of London task: Support for a goal--activation approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 103---115.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Iqbal, S.T., & Bailey, B.P. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of mental workload as a predictor of opportune moments for interruption. Proc. CHI 2005, 1489--1492. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Iqbal, S.T., et al. (2005). Towards an index of opportunity: Understanding changes in mental workload during task execution. Proc. CHI 2005, 311--320. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Mark, G., Gonzalez, V. M., & Harris, J. (2005). No task left behind? Examining the nature of fragmented work. Proc. CHI 2005, 321--330. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Monk, C. A., Boehm-Davis, D. A. & Trafton, J. G. (2004). Recovering from interruptions: Implications for driver distraction research. Human Factors, 46, 650--663.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Monk, C. A., Trafton, J. G., & Boehm-Davis, D. A. (2008). The effect of interruption duration and demand on resuming suspended goals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 299--313.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2008). Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. Psychological Review, 115, 101--130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2010). The Multitasking Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Salvucci, D. D., Taatgen, N. A., & Borst, J. P. (2009). Toward a unified theory of the multitasking continuum: From concurrent performance to task switching, interruption, and resumption. Proc. CHI 2009, 1819--1828. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Trafton, J. G., Altmann, E. M., Brock, D. P., & Mintz, F. E. (2003). Preparing to resume an interrupted task: Effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal. IJHCS, 58, 583--603. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. On reconstruction of task context after interruption

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CHI '10: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          April 2010
          2690 pages
          ISBN:9781605589299
          DOI:10.1145/1753326

          Copyright © 2010 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 10 April 2010

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader