View source for Interruption science

'''Interruption science''' is the [[interdisciplinarity|interdisciplinary]] scientific study concerned with how interruptions affect human performance, and the development of interventions to ameliorate the disruption caused by interruptions.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Stangl|first1=Fabian J.|last2=Riedl|first2=René|title=Interruption science as a research field: Towards a taxonomy of interruptions as a foundation for the field|journal=Frontiers in Psychology|date=2022|volume=14|pages=1043426|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1043426 |pmid=37034958 |pmc=10074991 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Interruption science is a branch of [[human factors and ergonomics|human factors psychology]] and emerged from [[human–computer interaction]] and [[cognitive psychology]].

Being ubiquitous in life and an intuitive concept, there are few formal definitions of interruption. A commonly agreed upon definition proposed by Boehm-Davis and Remington specifies an interruption is "the suspension of one stream of work prior to completion, with the intent of returning to and completing the original stream of work".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Boehm-Davis|first1=Deborah A.|last2=Remington|first2=Roger|title=Reducing the disruptive effects of interruption: A cognitive framework for analysing the costs and benefits of intervention strategies|journal=Accident Analysis & Prevention|date=September 2009|volume=41|issue=5|pages=1124–1129|doi=10.1016/j.aap.2009.06.029|pmid=19664456}}</ref> Interruptions are considered to be on the spectrum of [[human multitasking|multitasking]] and in this context referred to as '''sequential multitasking'''.<ref name="The multitasking mind">{{cite book|last1=Taatgen|first1=Dario D. Salvucci, Niels A.|title=The multitasking mind|date=2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|isbn=978-0199733569}}</ref> The distinguishing feature of an interruption (see [[Task switching (psychology)]], concurrent multitasking) is the presence of primary task which must be returned to upon completing a secondary interrupting task.<ref name="The multitasking mind"/> For instance, talking on the phone while driving is generally considered an instance of concurrent multitasking; stopping a data entry task to check emails is generally considered an instance of an interruption.

Interruptions, in almost all instances, are disruptive to performance and induce errors.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Trafton|first1=Gregory J.|last2=Monk|first2=Christopher A.|title=Task Interruptions|journal=Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics|date=1 March 2007|volume=3|issue=1|pages=111–126|doi=10.1518/155723408X299852}}</ref> Therefore, interruption science typically examines the effects of interruptions in high-risk workplace environments such as [[aviation]],<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Latorella|first1=K. A.|title=Effects of Modality on Interrupted Flight Deck Performance: Implications for Data Link|journal=Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting|date=1 October 1998|volume=42|issue=1|pages=87–91|doi=10.1177/154193129804200120|s2cid=220255262 }}</ref> [[medicine]],<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sanderson|first1=Penelope M.|last2=Grundgeiger|first2=Tobias|title=How do interruptions affect clinician performance in healthcare? Negotiating fidelity, control, and potential generalizability in the search for answers|journal=International Journal of Human-Computer Studies|date=July 2015|volume=79|pages=85–96|doi=10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.11.003|s2cid=7367238 |url=http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:349413/UQ349413_OA.pdf}}</ref> and [[Driving|vehicle operation]]<ref>{{cite book |doi=10.1145/2702123.2702409 |pages=487–496 |year=2015 |last1=Kim |first1=Seungjun |last2=Chun |first2=Jaemin |last3=Dey |first3=Anind K. |title=Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems |chapter=Sensors Know when to Interrupt You in the Car |isbn=9781450331456 |s2cid=15340675 }}</ref> in which [[human error]] can have serious, potentially disastrous consequences. Interruptions are also explored in less safety-critical workplaces, such as [[Knowledge worker|offices]], where interruptions can induce stress,<ref name="The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress">{{cite conference |title=The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress |author1=Gloria Mark |author2=Daniela Gudith |author3=Ulrich Klocke |book-title=CHI '08 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems |year=2008 |pages=107–110}}</ref> anxiety,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bailey|first1=Brian P.|last2=Konstan|first2=Joseph A.|title=On the need for attention-aware systems: Measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective state|journal=Computers in Human Behavior|date=July 2006|volume=22|issue=4|pages=685–708|doi=10.1016/j.chb.2005.12.009|s2cid=16424103 }}</ref> and poorer performance.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cades|first1=D. M.|last2=Werner|first2=N. E.|last3=Boehm-Davis|first3=D. A.|last4=Arshad|first4=Z.|title=What makes Real-World Interruptions Disruptive? Evidence from an Office Setting|journal=Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting|date=1 September 2010|volume=54|issue=4|pages=448–452|doi=10.1177/154193121005400437|s2cid=110014660 }}</ref>

==History==
{{Expand section|date=November 2015}}
The first formal investigation into interruptions was conducted by [[Bluma Zeigarnik|Zeigarnik]] and [[Maria Ovsiankina|Ovsiankina]] as part of the [[Vygotsky Circle]] in the 1920s. Their seminary research demonstrated the [[Zeigarnik effect]]: people remember uncompleted or interrupted tasks better than completed tasks. In the 1940s, Fitts and Jones reported that interruptions were a cause of pilot errors and flying accidents, and made recommendations on reducing these disruptive effects.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gillie|first1=Tony|last2=Broadbent|first2=Donald|title=What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity|journal=Psychological Research|date=April 1989|volume=50|issue=4|pages=243–250|doi=10.1007/BF00309260|s2cid=14878182 }}</ref>

==Theoretical models==
{{Empty section|date=November 2015}}

==Knowledge workers==
Office workers face a number of interruptions due to information technologies such as [[e-mail]], [[text message]]s, and phone calls. One line of research in interruption science examines the disruptive effects of these technologies and how to improve the [[usability|usability and design]] of such devices. According to Gloria Mark, "the average [[knowledge worker]] switches tasks every three minutes, and, once distracted, a worker can take nearly a half-hour to resume the original task".<ref name=marci>{{cite news |last1=Alboher|first1=Marci|title=Fighting a War Against Distraction|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/jobs/22shifting.html|work=[[New York Times]]|date=22 June 2008}}</ref> Mark conducted a study on office workers, which revealed that "each employee spent only 11 minutes on any given project before being interrupted".<ref name="NYT6">{{cite news |last1=Thompson|first1=Clive|author-link1=Clive Thompson (journalist)|title=Meet the Life Hackers|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/magazine/16guru.html?pagewanted=all|work=New York Times|date=16 October 2005}}</ref> Kelemen et al. showed that a team of programmers is interrupted through a technical Skype support chat up to 150 times a day, but these interruptions can be reduced by introducing a dispatcher role and a knowledge base.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kelemen|first1=Zádor Dániel|last2=Tódor|first2=Balázs|last3=Hodosi|first3=Sándor|last4=Somfai|first4=Ákos|date=2016-11-01|title=Refactoring technical support to reduce interrupts of developers|journal=Journal of Software: Evolution and Process|language=en|volume=28|issue=11|pages=960–968|doi=10.1002/smr.1822|issn=2047-7481|arxiv=1510.04929|s2cid=16409217 }}</ref>

===Notifications===
One of the major challenges associated with increased reliance on information technologies is they will send users notifications, without considering current task demands. Answering notifications impedes task performance and the ability to resume to the original task at hand.<ref name=ACM>{{cite book |last=Iqbal|first=Shamsi T.|author2=Horvitz|title=Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work |chapter=Notifications and awareness |year=2010|pages=27–30|doi=10.1145/1718918.1718926|isbn=9781605587950|s2cid=843427 }}</ref> In addition, even just knowing that one has received a notification can negatively impact sustained attention.<ref name=stothartetal2015>{{cite journal |last1=Stothart|first1=C|last2=Mitchum|first2=A|last3=Yehnert|first3=C|title=The Attentional Cost of Receiving a Cell Phone Notification.|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance|date=29 June 2015|doi=10.1037/xhp0000100|pmid=26121498|volume=41|issue=4|pages=893–7|s2cid=1480816}}</ref>

Several solutions have been proposed to this problem. One study suggested entirely disable email notifications. The down side was it may induce a pressure to constant need to check their email accounts.<ref name=ACM/>{{rp|27}} In fact, entirely removing notifications may lead people to spend more time checking their email.<ref name=ACM/>{{rp|29}} The absence of e-mail notifications is often seen as counterproductive because of the required "catch-up" time periods after a long time between email checking.<ref name=ACM/>{{rp|30}} Alternatively, there are several attempts to design software applications that deliver notifications when there is an identified break from work,<ref>{{cite web|last=Cutrell|first=Edward|title=Notification, Disruption, and Memory: Effects of Messaging Interruptions on Memory and Performance|url=http://interruptions.net/literature/Cutrell-Interact01-Messaging.pdf|publisher=Microsoft Research|access-date=15 October 2012}}</ref> or categorize notifications based on their relative importance (e.g. Oasis).

Research has also investigated the effects of relevant interruptions, and found notifications relevant to the current task are less disruptive than if it were unrelated.<ref name="Notification Manage">{{cite book |last=Iqbal|first=Shamsi T|author2=Bailey|title=Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems |chapter=Effects of intelligent notification management on users and their tasks |year=2008|pages=93–102|chapter-url=http://interruptions.net/literature.htm|access-date=17 October 2012|doi=10.1145/1357054.1357070|citeseerx=10.1.1.192.257|isbn=9781605580111|s2cid=9847368 }}</ref>{{rp|99}} Overall task performance is most impacted when an instant message is received during fast and stimulus-driven tasks such as typing, pressing buttons, or examining search results.<ref name=Cutrell>{{cite journal |last=Cutrell|first=Edward|author2=Czerwinski, Horvitz|title=Notification, Disruption, and Memory: Effects of Messaging Interruptions on Memory and Performance|journal=INTERACT 2001 Conference Proceedings|year=2001|pages=263–269|url=http://interruptions.net/literature/Cutrell-Interact01-Messaging.pdf|access-date=17 October 2012}}</ref>{{rp|263,265,268}}

Bounded deferral is a restricted notification method that entails users waiting a prescribed amount of time before they access a [[notification system|notification]] to reduce the amount of interruption and decline in productivity. This technique was used in the aim to provide calmer and less disruptive work spaces.<ref>{{cite web |last=Horvitz|first=Eric|title=Balancing Awareness and Interruption: Investigation of Notification Deferral Policies|url=http://interruptions.net/literature/Horvitz-UM05b.pdf|publisher=Microsoft Research|access-date=17 October 2012}}</ref>{{rp|1}} If users are busy, alerts and notifications are put aside and delivered only when users are in a position to receive notifications without harming their work. The bounded deferral method has proven to be useful and has the potential to become even more effective on a wider scale, as it has showed how an effective notification system can operate.

==Medicine==
[[File:Doctor Miguel Angel Carbajo.jpg|thumb|right|200px|For a [[surgeon]], interruption during an operation could have serious consequences. Yet in some cases, a surgeon may need to be interrupted to make him or her aware of new issues arising with the patient.]]

In nursing, a study has been conducted of the impact of interruptions on [[nurse]]s in a [[trauma center]].<ref>Brixey J. J., Robinson D. J., Tang Z., Johnson T. R., Zhang J. & Turley J. P. (2005) "Interruptions in Workflow for RNs in a Level-One Trauma Center", in: ''AMIA 2005 Annual Symposium Proceedings'', Bethesda, MD: [[American Medical Informatics Association]], 86-90</ref> Another study has been done on the interruption rates of nurses and doctors.<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Paxton |first1= F. |last2= Heaney |first2= D. J. |last3= Howie |first3= J. G. |last4= Porter |first4= A. M. |year= 1996 |title= A study of interruption rates for practice nurses and GPs |journal= Nursing Standard |volume= 10 |issue= 43 |pages= 33–36|doi= 10.7748/ns.10.43.33.s53 |pmid= 8826300 }}</ref>

Interruption caused by smartphone use in health-care settings can be deadly. Hence, it may be worthwhile for health care organizations to craft effective cellphone usage policies to maximize technological benefits and minimize unnecessary distraction associated with smartphone use.<ref name="RMHP_Gill2012">{{cite journal |first1=P.S. |last1=Gill |first2=A. |last2=Kamath |first3=T.S. |last3=Gill|title=Distraction: an assessment of smartphone usage in health care work settings |journal=Risk Management and Healthcare Policy |volume=5 |year=2012 |pages=105–114|url= |doi=10.2147/RMHP.S34813|pmid=22969308 |pmc=3437811 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

==See also==
*[[Human multitasking]]
*[[Ovsiankina effect]]

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==Further reading==

*Adamczyk P. D. & Bailey B. P. (2004) If not now, when?: The effects of interruption at different moments within task execution, in: ''Human Factors in Computing Systems: Proceedings of CHI'04,'' New York: ACM Press, 271-278
*{{cite journal |last1= Altmann |first1= E. M. |last2= Trafton |first2= J. G. |year= 2007 |title= Timecourse of recovery from task interruption: Data and a model |journal= Psychonomic Bulletin & Review |volume= 14 |issue= 6 |pages= 1079–1084 |doi=10.3758/bf03193094|pmid= 18229478 |doi-access= free }}
*{{cite journal |last1= Altmann |first1= E. M. |last2= Trafton |first2= J. G. |year= 2002 |title= Memory for goals: An activation-based model |url=http://interruptions.net/literature/Altmann-CogSci02.pdf |journal= Cognitive Science |volume= 26 |issue= 1 |pages= 39–83 |doi=10.1207/s15516709cog2601_2|doi-access= free }}
*Bailey, B. P., Konstan, J. A., & Carlis, J. V. (2001). The Effects of Interruptions on Task Performance, Annoyance, and Anxiety in the User Interface. Proceedings of INTERACT '01, IOS Press, 593–601.
*Cades, D. M., Davis, D. A. B., Trafton, J. G., & Monk, C. A. (2007). Does the difficulty of an interruption affect our ability to resume? In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 51, pp.&nbsp;234–238). SAGE Publications.
*{{cite journal |last1= Edwards |first1= M. B. |last2= Gronlund |first2= S. D. |year= 1998 |title= Task interruption and its effects on memory |journal= Memory (Hove, England) |volume= 6 |issue= 6 |pages= 665–687 |doi= 10.1080/741943375|pmid= 10320869 |citeseerx= 10.1.1.10.7374 }}
*{{cite journal |last1= Gillie |first1= T. |last2= Broadbent |first2= D. |year= 1989 |title= What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity |journal= Psychological Research |volume= 50 |issue= 4 |pages= 243–250 |doi=10.1007/bf00309260|s2cid= 14878182 }}
*{{cite journal |last1= Gould |first1= S. J. J. |last2= Brumby |first2= D. P. |last3= Cox |first3= A. L. |year= 2013 |title= What does it mean for an interruption to be relevant? An investigation of relevance as a memory effect |url= http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1397068/|journal= Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting |volume= 57 |issue= 1 |pages= 149–153 |doi= 10.1177/1541931213571034|s2cid= 54199007 }}
*{{cite journal |last1= Grundgeiger |first1= T. |last2= Sanderson |first2= P. |last3= MacDougall |first3= H. G. |last4= Venkatesh |first4= B. |year= 2010 |title= Interruption Management in the Intensive Care Unit: Predicting Resumption Times and Assessing Distributed Support |journal= Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied  |volume= 16 |issue= 4 |pages= 317–334 |doi= 10.1037/A0021912|pmid= 21198250 |citeseerx= 10.1.1.185.2771 |s2cid= 1214919 }}
*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''' (1): 103-115. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.103
*{{cite journal |last1= Janssen |first1= C. P. |last2= Gould |first2= S. J. J. |last3= Li |first3= S. Y. W. |last4= Brumby |first4= D. P. |last5= Cox |first5= A. L. |year= 2015 |title= Integrating knowledge of multitasking and Interruptions across different Perspectives and research methods |url= http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1465496/|journal= International Journal of Human-Computer Studies |volume= 79 |pages= 1–5 |doi= 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.03.002|hdl= 1874/314512 |s2cid= 18574449 |hdl-access= free }}
*Latorella, K. A. (1999). Investigating interruptions: Implications for flight deck performance (Technical Memorandum NASA/TM-1999-209707), (October).
*{{cite journal |last1= Monk |first1= C. A. |last2= Trafton |first2= J. G. |last3= Boehm-Davis |first3= D. A. |year= 2008 |title= The effect of interruption duration and demand on resuming suspended goals |journal= Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied |volume= 14 |issue= 4 |pages= 299–313 |doi=10.1037/a0014402|pmid= 19102614 |citeseerx= 10.1.1.217.3267 }}
*{{cite journal |last1= Ratwani |first1= R. M. |last2= Trafton |first2= J. G. |last3= Myers |first3= C. |year= 2006 |title= Helpful or harmful? Examining the effects of interruptions on task performance |journal= Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting |volume= 50 |issue= 3|pages= 372–375 |doi= 10.1177/154193120605000334|s2cid= 143317325 }}
*Remington, R. W., & Loft, S. (2015). Attention and multitasking. APA Handbook of Human Systems Integration., (1918), 261–276. doi 10.1037/14528-017
*Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2011). The multitasking mind. Oxford series on cognitive models and architectures. Retrieved from http://lib.myilibrary.com/detail.asp?ID=279322\nhttp://firstsearch.oclc.org/WebZ/DECRead?standardNoType=1&standardNo=0199733562&sessionid=0&srcdbname=worldcat&key=455a3d5fd3b04b30b7e62eefaccb0a6c37c006d081c99153ebf63d6646df2b41&ectype=MOREINFO\nhttp://fir
*{{cite journal |last1= Sanderson |first1= P. M. |last2= Grundgeiger |first2= T. |year= 2015 |title= How do interruptions affect clinician performance in healthcare? Negotiating fidelity, control, and potential generalizability in the search for answers |url= http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:349413/UQ349413_OA.pdf|journal= International Journal of Human-Computer Studies |volume= 79 |pages= 85–96 |doi= 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.11.003|s2cid= 7367238 }}
*{{cite journal |last1= Sasangohar |first1= F. |last2= Scott |first2= S. D. |last3= Donmez |first3= B. |year= 2013 |title= Interruption Management and Recovery in Time-critical Supervisory-level Tasks A Literature Review |journal= Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting |volume= 57 |pages= 1745–1749 |doi=10.1177/1541931213571389|s2cid= 49582132 }}
*{{cite journal |last1= Trafton |first1= J. G. |last2= Monk |year= 2007 |title= Task interruptions |journal= Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics |volume= 3 |issue= 1 |pages= 111–126 |doi= 10.1518/155723408X299852}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Interruption Science}}
[[Category:Attention]]
[[Category:Aviation safety]]
[[Category:Human–computer interaction]]
[[Category:Industrial and organizational psychology]]
[[Category:Patient safety]]
[[Category:Transport safety]]