Methodology

• Kaptein, M. C., Nass, C., & Markopoulos, P. (2010). Powerful and consistent analysis of likert-type ratingscales. CHI ’10 (pp. 2391-2394). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/1753326.1753686.

• Wobbrock, J. O., Findlater, L., Gergle, D., & Higgins, J. J. (2011). The Aligned Rank Transform for Nonparametric Factorial Analyses Using Only A NOVA Procedures. CHI 2011 (pp. 143-146).

[Oulasvirta 06]

Oulasvirta, A., & Saariluoma, P. (2006). Surviving task interruptions: Investigating the implications of long-term working memory theory. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(10), 941-961. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.04.006.

• interruptions have no effect on memory when LTWM encoding speed is fast enough for task processing, regardless of pacing, intensity, difficulty;
• cost of interruptions = memory loss - omissions and errors;
• safeguarding task representations;
• individual and task differences in interruption tolerance;
• if safeguarding has taken place, resumption of a task should be quick and accurate regardless of processing demands of interrupting task;
• current theories of STWM, short-term traces are assumed to decay completely, in a time of about 30s, when no rehearsal can be carried out during interruption;
• theories of working memory based on transient activation of information in LTM cannot explain the resumption of activity once the information in working memory has be irretrievably lost;
• if an interruption takes place, task representation in LTWM remains in an interrupted but intact state; people can use the few seconds available upon task switching to encode some of those contents to LTWM; when encoding skills do not match the processing demands assumed by the task environment, resumption of the task requires alternative strategies, searching for cues in the environment or generating them based on semantic memory on the task;
• benefit of interruption lag / opportunity to rehearse disappeared with task practice;
• processing demands of interruption task does not affect memory for main task (in contrast to [Gillie 89]); rehearsal used as maintenance strategy; retrieval structures not used for meaningless stimuli;
• no evidence for transient activation, refreshing activation during interruption lag / interruption
• length of interruption can matter i conditions of massive interference and where rehearsal is rules our by experimental manipulation;
• memory load / task phase are not the factors determining disruptiveness to interruptions although they do coincide with it;
• extreme time pressure may lead to selection of stimulus-specific processes at the expense of processes relying on a more general representation;
• semantic access in contrast to surface access;

• Iqbal, S. T., & Bailey, B. P. (2010). Oasis. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 17(4), 1-28. doi: 10.1145/1879831.1879833.

• Bogunovich, P., & Salvucci, D. (2011). The Effects of Time Constraints on User Behavior for Deferrable Interruptions. Read, 3123-3126. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from http://www.cs.drexel.edu/~salvucci/publications/Bogunovich-CHI11.pdf.

• Dabbish, L., Mark, G., & González, V. M. (2011). Why do i keep interrupting myself?: environment, habit and self-interruption. CHI 2011 (p. 3127–3130). ACM. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1979405.

• Uttl, B. (2008). Transparent meta-analysis of prospective memory and aging. PloS one, 3(2), e1568. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001568.

• Hasher, L., Stoltzfus, E. R., Zacks, R. T., & Rypma, B. (1991). Age and inhibition. Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 17(1), 163-9. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1826730.

• Kim, S., Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (2007). Aging and a benefit of distractibility. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 14(2), 301-5. Retrieved from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2121579&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.

• Lindenberger U, Baltes PB. Sensory Functioning and Intelligence in Old Age: A Strong Connection. Psychology and Aging. 1994;9(3):339-355. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WYV-46SGK21-1/2/6b37eac862452ac3771ca27846debd83.

• Craik, F. I., Byrd, M., & Swanson, J. M. (1987). Patterns of memory loss in three elderly samples. Psychology and aging, 2(1), 79-86. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3268196.
• Cabeza, R. (2004). Task-independent and Task-specific Age Effects on Brain Activity during Working Memory, Visual Attention and Episodic Retrieval. Cerebral Cortex, 14(4), 364-375. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhg133.

• Cabeza, R., Anderson, N., Locantore, J., & Mcintosh, A. (2002). Aging Gracefully: Compensatory Brain Activity in High-Performing Older Adults. NeuroImage, 17(3), 1394-1402. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2002.1280.

• Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1997). Aging and Mind Wandering: Reduced Inhibition in Older Adults? Experimental Aging Research, 23(4), 343-354. doi: 10.1080/03610739708254035.

• West, R. L. (1996). An application of prefrontal cortex function theory to cognitive aging. Psychological bulletin, 120(2), 272-92. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8831298.
  • [West 96] studied PFC change with age and effect on RM, PM, interference control/suppression of distractions, response inhibition (go/no-go), recall and recognition memory; evidence from patients with frontal lobe damage - neural correlates of distraction;