Difference: C-TOCLiteratureReview (63 vs. 64)

Revision 642010-09-08 - MatthewBrehmer

Line: 1 to 1

META TOPICPARENT	name="C-TOC"

C-TOC Literature Review

Line: 961 to 961

Cutrell E, Czerwinski M, Horvitz E. Notification, disruption, and memory: Effects of messaging interruptions on memory and performance. Human Factors. 2001;(1999). Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.26.418

Added:

>
>

abstract: influence of IM on ongoing computing tasks; generally disruptive effects of IM during fast-stimulus-driven search tasks; interruptions coming early during a search task result in user forgetting primary task goal;
following from [Gillie 89: info should be presented in such a way as to reduce similarity interference;
verified findings of previously reported work; main effects for presence of notifications and for gist search type; little to no benefit of having a marker present after a notification was received; reminders used more often if IM was received earlier in search trial; implications for automated systems for delivering notifications;
summary: come task phases are less amenable to interruption than others; current study results demonstrate harmful effects of notification delivery on memory for the prior task early in a task's lifecycle;
potential solution: use graphical and linguistic summaries of interrupted task? a single text sentence describing a previous task can be an affective tool to get users back on track after a notification;

[Gillie 89]

Gillie T, Broadbent D. What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychological Research. 1989;50(4):243-250. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/BF00309260.

View topic | History: r86 < r85 < r84 < r83 | More topic actions...