Not now! Supporting interruption management by indicating the modality and urgency of pending tasks

Human Factors

Volumn 46, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 399-409

  Ho, Chih Yuan ^a   Nikolic, Mark I ^a   Waters, Molly J ^a,c   Sarter, Nadine B ^a,b  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c Ohio State University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COSTS; HUMAN ENGINEERING; NATURAL FREQUENCIES; SIGNAL INTERFERENCE;

MODALITY; SCANNING COSTS; VISUAL INTERRUPTION;

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL;

ADULT; AIRPORT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; JOB PERFORMANCE; MALE; RANDOMIZATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL INFORMATION; WORK ENVIRONMENT; WORKLOAD;

ACCELERATION; ADULT; AIRCRAFT; AVIATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; REACTION TIME; REFERENCE VALUES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPACE PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 8644251918     PISSN: 00187208     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1518/hfes.46.3.399.50397     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Czerwinski, M., Cutrell, E., & Horvitz, E. (2000). Instant messaging and interruption: Influence of task type on performance. In C. Paris, N. Ozkan, S. Howard, & S. Lu (Eds.), OZCHI 2000 Conference proceedings (pp. 356-361). Narrabundah: Ergonomics Society of Australia.
2. Dismukes, K., Young, G., & Sumwalt, R. (1998). Cockpit interruptions and distractions: Effective management requires a careful balancing act. Aviation Safety Reporting System Direct-line, 10. Retrieved July 28, 2004, from http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/ directline_issues/dl10_distract.htm
3. Funk, K., & Braune, R. (1999). The agenda manager: A knowledge-based system to facilitate the management of flight deck activities. In Proceedings of the 1999 World Aviation Congress (pp. 1-15). San Francisco: Society of Automotive Engineers.
4. Gillie, T., & Broadbent, D. E. (1989). What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychological Research, 50, 243-250.
5. Kuperman, G. G., & Perez, W. A. (1988). A frame-based mission decomposition model. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 135-139). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
6. Latorella, K. A. (1998). Effects of modality on interrupted flight deck performance: Implications for DataLink. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 87-91). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
7. Latorella, K. A. (1999). Investigating interruptions: Implications for flight deck performance (Tech. Memorandum NASA/TM-1999-209707). Hampton, VA: NASA-Langley Research Center.
8. McFarlane, D. C., & Latorella, K. A. (2002). The scope and importance of human interruption in human-computer interaction design. Human-Computer Interaction, 17, 1-61.
9. Sarter, N. B. (2002). Multimodal information presentation in support of human-automation communication and coordination. In E. Salas (Ed.), Advances in human performance and cognitive engineering research (pp. 13-36). New York: JAI.
10. Sklar, A. E., & Sarter, N. B. (1999). "Good vibrations": The use of tactile feedback in support of mode awareness on advanced technology aircraft. Human Factors, 41, 543-552.
11. Sorkin, R. D., Kantowitz, B. H., & Kantowitz, S. C. (1988). Likelihood alarm displays. Human Factors, 30, 445-459.
12. Spence, C., & Driver, J. (1997). Cross-modal links in attention between audition, vision, and touch: Implications for interface design. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 1, 351-373.
13. Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63-101). Orlando, FL: Academic.
14. Woods, D. D. (1995). The alarm problem and directed attention in dynamic fault management. Ergonomics, 38, 2371-2393.