skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Intelligent Interruption Management using Electro Dermal Activity based Physiological Sensor for Collaborative Sensemaking

Published:11 September 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Sensemaking tasks are difficult to accomplish with limited time and attentional resources because analysts are faced with a constant stream of new information. While this information is often important, the timing of the interruptions may detract from analyst's work. In an ideal world, there would be no interruptions. But that is not the case in real world sensemaking tasks. So, in this study, we explore the value of timing interruptions based on an analyst's state of arousal as detected by Electrodermal activity derived form galvanic skin response (EDA). In a laboratory study, we compared performance when interruptions were timed to occur during increasing arousal, decreasing arousal, at random intervals or not at all. Analysts performed significantly better when interruptions occurred during periods of increasing arousal than when they were random. Further, analysts rated process component of team experience significantly higher also during periods of increasing arousal than when they were random. Self-reported workload was not impacted by interruptions timing. We discuss how system designs could leverage inexpensive off-the-shelf wrist sensors to improve interruption timing.

References

  1. Yomna Abdelrahman, Eduardo Velloso, Tilman Dingler, Albrecht Schmidt, and Frank Vetere. 2017. Cognitive Heat: Exploring the Usage of Thermal Imaging to Unobtrusively Estimate Cognitive Load. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 1, 3 (2017), 33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Piotr D Adamczyk and Brian P Bailey. 2004. If not now, when?: the effects of interruption at different moments within task execution. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 271--278. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Albert F Ax. 1953. The physiological differentiation between fear and anger in humans. Psychosomatic medicine 15, 5 (1953), 433--442.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Brian P Bailey, Piotr D Adamczyk, Tony Y Chang, and Neil A Chilson. 2006. A framework for specifying and monitoring user tasks. Computers in Human Behavior 22, 4 (2006), 709--732.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Brian P Bailey and Shamsi T Iqbal. 2008. Understanding changes in mental workload during execution of goal-directed tasks and its application for interruption management. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 14, 4 (2008), 21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Brian P Bailey and Joseph A Konstan. 2006. On the need for attention-aware systems: Measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective state. Computers in human behavior 22, 4 (2006), 685--708.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Aruna D Balakrishnan, Susan R Fussell, and Sara Kiesler. 2008. Do visualizations improve synchronous remote collaboration?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1227--1236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Aruna D Balakrishnan, Susan R Fussell, Sara Kiesler, and Aniket Kittur. 2010. Pitfalls of information access with visualizations in remote collaborative analysis. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, 411--420. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Wolfram Boucsein. 2012. Electrodermal activity. Springer Science 8 Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. AJ Brush, David Bargeron, Jonathan Grudin, and Anoop Gupta. 2002. Notification for shared annotation of digital documents. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 89--96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Daniel Chen, Jamie Hart, and Roel Vertegaal. 2007. Towards a physiological model of user interruptability. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 439--451. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Gregorio Convertino, Helena M Mentis, Mary Beth Rosson, Aleksandra Slavkovic, and John M Carroll. 2009. Supporting content and process common ground in computer-supported teamwork. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2339--2348. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Mary Czerwinski, Edward Cutrell, and Eric Horvitz. 2000. Instant messaging and interruption: Influence of task type on performance. In OZCHI 2000 conference proceedings, Vol. 356. 361--367.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Mary Czerwinski, Edward Cutrell, and Eric Horvitz. 2000. Instant messaging: Effects of relevance and timing. In People and computers XIV: Proceedings of HCI, Vol. 2. 71--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. RK Dismukes, Grant E Young, Robert L Sumwalt III, and Cynthia H Null. 1998. Cockpit interruptions and distractions: Effective management requires a careful balancing act. (1998).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Steven A Egger. 2002. The killers among us: An examination of serial murder and its investigation. Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. James Fogarty, Andrew J Ko, Htet Htet Aung, Elspeth Golden, Karen P Tang, and Scott E Hudson. 2005. Examining task engagement in sensor-based statistical models of human interruptibility. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 331--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Darren Gergle, Robert E Kraut, and Susan R Fussell. 2004. Language efficiency and visual technology: Minimizing collaborative effort with visual information. Journal of language and social psychology 23, 4 (2004), 491--517.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Steven Gottlieb, Sheldon I Arenberg, Raj Singh, et al. 1994. Crime analysis: From first report to final arrest. Alpha Publishing Montclair, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Nitesh Goyal. 2015. Designing for Collaborative Sensemaking: Using Expert 8 Non-Expert Crowd. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06053 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Nitesh Goyal and Susan R Fussell. 2015. Designing for Collaborative Sensemaking: Leveraging Human Cognition For Complex Tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.05737 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Nitesh Goyal and Susan R Fussell. 2016. Effects of Sensemaking Translucence on Distributed Collaborative Analysis. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work 8 Social Computing. ACM, 288--302. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Nitesh Goyal, Gilly Leshed, Dan Cosley, and Susan R Fussell. 2014. Effects of implicit sharing in collaborative analysis. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 129--138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Nitesh Goyal, Gilly Leshed, and Susan R Fussell. 2013. Effects of visualization and note-taking on sensemaking and analysis. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2721--2724. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Nitesh Goyal, Gilly Leshed, and Susan R Fussell. 2013. Leveraging partner's insights for distributed collaborative sensemaking. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work companion. ACM, 15--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Carl Gutwin and Saul Greenberg. 1998. Design for individuals, design for groups: tradeoffs between power and workspace awareness. In Proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, 207--216. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. SG Hart and LE Staveland. 1988. Development of a Muli-dimensional Workload Rating Scale: Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. Human Mental Workload. PA Hancock and N. Meshkati. (1988).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Stephen C Hayne, Lucy J Troup, and Sara A Mccomb. 2011. âĂIJWhereâĂŹs Farah?âĂİ: Knowledge silos and information fusion by distributed collaborating teams. Information Systems Frontiers 13, 1 (2011), 89--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Jeffrey Heer, Fernanda B Viégas, and Martin Wattenberg. 2009. Voyagers and voyeurs: Supporting asynchronous collaborative visualization. Commun. ACM 52, 1 (2009), 87--97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Eric Horvitz, Andy Jacobs, and David Hovel. 1999. Attention-sensitive alerting. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 305--313. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Shamsi T Iqbal and Brian P Bailey. 2006. Leveraging characteristics of task structure to predict the cost of interruption. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems. ACM, 741--750. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Shamsi T Iqbal and Brian P Bailey. 2008. Effects of intelligent notification management on users and their tasks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 93--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Thomas Jackson, Ray Dawson, and Darren Wilson. 2001. The cost of email interruption. Journal of Systems and Information Technology 5, 1 (2001), 81--92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Ruogu Kang, Aimee Kane, and Sara Kiesler. 2014. Teammate inaccuracy blindness: when information sharing tools hinder collaborative analysis. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work 8 social computing. ACM, 797--806. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Ruogu Kang and Sara Kiesler. 2012. Do collaborators' annotations help or hurt asynchronous analysis. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work Companion. ACM, 123--126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Kara A Latorella. 1998. Effects of modality on interrupted flight deck performance: Implications for data link. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, Vol. 42. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 87--91.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. John D Lee, Joshua D Hoffman, and Elizabeth Hayes. 2004. Collision warning design to mitigate driver distraction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 65--72. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Santosh Mathan, Stephen Whitlow, Michael Dorneich, Patricia Ververs, and Gene Davis. 2007. Neurophysiological estimation of interruptibility: Demonstrating feasibility in a field context. In In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of the Augmented Cognition Society. 51--58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. D Scott McCrickard, Richard Catrambone, Christa M Chewar, and John T Stasko. 2003. Establishing tradeoffs that leverage attention for utility: empirically evaluating information display in notification systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 58, 5 (2003), 547--582. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. C McFarlane Daniel and A Latorella Kara. 2002. The scope and importance of human interruption in HCI design. Human-Computer Interaction 17, 1 (2002), 1--61. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Helena M Mentis, Paula M Bach, Blaine Hoffman, Mary Beth Rosson, and John M Carroll. 2009. Development of decision rationale in complex group decision making. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1341--1350. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Yoko Nagai, Laura H Goldstein, Hugo D Critchley, and Peter BC Fenwick. 2004. Influence of sympathetic autonomic arousal on cortical arousal: implications for a therapeutic behavioural intervention in epilepsy. Epilepsy research 58, 2 (2004), 185--193.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Syavash Nobarany, Mona Haraty, and Brian Fisher. 2012. Facilitating the reuse process in distributed collaboration: a distributed cognition approach. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 1223--1232. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Nargess Nourbakhsh, Yang Wang, Fang Chen, and Rafael A Calvo. 2012. Using galvanic skin response for cognitive load measurement in arithmetic and reading tasks. In Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference. ACM, 420--423. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Tadashi Okoshi, Julian Ramos, Hiroki Nozaki, Jin Nakazawa, Anind K Dey, and Hideyuki Tokuda. 2015. Reducing users' perceived mental effort due to interruptive notifications in multi-device mobile environments. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. ACM, 475--486. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Veljko Pejovic and Mirco Musolesi. 2014. InterruptMe: designing intelligent prompting mechanisms for pervasive applications. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. ACM, 897--908. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Nicholas J Pioch and John O Everett. 2006. POLESTAR: collaborative knowledge management and sensemaking tools for intelligence analysts. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management. ACM, 513--521. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Peter Pirolli and Stuart Card. 2005. The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. In Proceedings of international conference on intelligence analysis, Vol. 5. 2--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Cheri Speier, Joseph S Valacich, and Iris Vessey. 1999. The influence of task interruption on individual decision making: An information overload perspective. Decision Sciences 30, 2 (1999), 337--360.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Neville A Stanton. 1994. Human factors in alarm design. CRC Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Jonathan Sykes and Simon Brown. 2003. Affective gaming: measuring emotion through the gamepad. In CHI'03 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 732--733. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Heather L Urry, Carien M van Reekum, Tom Johnstone, and Richard J Davidson. 2009. Individual differences in some (but not all) medial prefrontal regions reflect cognitive demand while regulating unpleasant emotion. Neuroimage 47, 3 (2009), 852--863.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Wesley Willett, Jeffrey Heer, Joseph Hellerstein, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2011. CommentSpace: structured support for collaborative visual analysis. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3131--3140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Paweł Wozniak, Nitesh Goyal, Przemysław Kucharski, Lars Lischke, Sven Mayer, and Morten Fjeld. 2016. RAMPARTS: Supporting Sensemaking with Spatially-Aware Mobile Interactions. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2447--2460. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Fred RH Zijlstra, Robert A Roe, Anna B Leonora, and Irene Krediet. 1999. Temporal factors in mental work: Effects of interrupted activities. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72, 2 (1999), 163--185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Manuela Züger and Thomas Fritz. 2015. Interruptibility of software developers and its prediction using psycho-physiological sensors. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2981--2990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Intelligent Interruption Management using Electro Dermal Activity based Physiological Sensor for Collaborative Sensemaking

          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

          Full Access

          • Published in

            cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies
            Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies  Volume 1, Issue 3
            September 2017
            2023 pages
            EISSN:2474-9567
            DOI:10.1145/3139486
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2017 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: 11 September 2017
            • Accepted: 1 July 2017
            • Revised: 1 May 2017
            • Received: 1 November 2016
            Published in imwut Volume 1, Issue 3

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader