Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 137 to 137 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 676 to 676 | ||||||||
Did strategy differ between passive and active interruptions?
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Other Factors (Local) |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 704 to 704 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Other Factors (Local) |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 502 to 502 | ||||||||
Questionnaire Results (Global) | ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | There were no significant differences in self-reported fatigue levels across age groups or interruption demand conditions, nor were there interactions. | |||||||
Fatigue | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | There were no significant differences in self-reported fatigue levels across age groups or interruption demand conditions, nor were there interactions. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 571 to 571 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | InterviewsTask DifficultyWhich task was more difficult, regardless of whether or not they were interrupted?
Interruption DisruptionWhich task was more disrupted by interruptions?
Interruption Lag / DelayWas the interruption lag delay helpful?
Task Resumption StrategiesWhat task resumption strategies were used?
Interruption TypesDid strategy differ between passive and active interruptions?
| |||||||
Other Factors (Local)Other factors were examined to ensure the validity of results (at local level only). |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 94 to 94 | ||||||||
Results | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | All completion time, resumption lag time, and inter-action interval times have been log-transformed to correct for positive skews. Normalized score results, questionnaire responses, and n-back scores, have been analyzed using the Aligned-Rank Transform for nonparametric factorial ANOVAs. An analysis with 2 age groups (split at the median age of 64) was also performed; however this did not reveal any new aspects in the data. Main effects and interactions as seen with 3 groups were largely still present with 2 groups. Outlier analysis using box-plots and cost-of-interruption scatter plots was also performed, however no significant outliers were found. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 110 to 114 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Across Tasks (Sentence Comprehension & Square Puzzles) | |||||||
> > | Across Tasks Analysis (Sentence Comprehension & Square Puzzles) | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 123 to 127 | ||||||||
Local | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Younger adults were significantly faster than older adults. Pre-old adults were marginally faster than older adults. Sentence Comprehension was faster than Square Puzzles. There were significant interactions between age and interruption demand, between task and interruption demand, and between age, interruption demand, and task. These interactions are explored in the Within-Tasks Analysis section below. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 133 to 139 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
Global | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Younger adults were significantly faster than older adults, and marginally faster than pre-old adults. Pre-old adults were significantly faster than older adults. The no-interruption condition was marginally faster than the low-demand and high-demand conditions. Sentence Comprehension was significantly faster than Square Puzzles. There was a marginal 3-way interaction between age, interruption demand, and task. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 169 to 174 | ||||||||
Local | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Younger adults had significantly higher scores than pre-old and older adults.; | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 181 to 188 | ||||||||
Global | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Younger adults have significantly higher score than younger adults and marginally higher score than pre-old adults. Scores were significantly higher in the Sentence Comprehension task than in the Square Puzzles task. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 196 to 205 | ||||||||
Task Resumption Lag Time (Local) | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Times have been log-transformed to correct positive skew. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 203 to 214 | ||||||||
RLT-L vs. RLT-H | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Younger adults have significantly shorter task resumption lags than pre-old and older adults. Lags were significantly shorter in the low-demand condition than in the high demand condition. Lags were significantly shorter in the Sentence Comprehension task than in the Square Puzzles task. There were significant interactions between age and interruption demand, between task and interruption demand, and between age, task, and interruption demand. These interactions are explored in detail in the Within-Tasks analysis section. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 221 to 234 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 233 to 245 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
IIA-N vs. RLT-L vs. RLT-H | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Younger adults have significantly shorter task resumption lags than pre-old and older adults. Lags were significantly shorter in the Sentence Comprehension task than in the Square Puzzles task. There were significant interactions between age and interruption demand, between task and interruption demand, and between age, task, and interruption demand. These interactions are explored in detail in the Within-Tasks analysis section. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 250 to 263 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 258 to 270 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Within Tasks | |||||||
> > | Within Tasks Analysis | |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Sentence ComprehensionCompletion Time (Local) | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Younger adults are significantly faster than older adults, and marginally faster than pre-old adults. Pre-old adults are marginally faster than older adults. The no-interruption and low-demand conditions were significantly faster than the high-demand condition. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 286 to 298 | ||||||||
Score (Local) | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Younger adults score significantly higher than pre-old and older adults. There is a marginal effect of interruption demand. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 296 to 310 | ||||||||
Task Resumption Lag Time (Local) | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Times have been log-transformed to correct positive skew. | |||||||
RLT-L vs. RLT-H | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Younger adults had significantly shorter task resumption lag times than pre-old and older adults. The low-demand condition's task resumption time was significantly shorter than the task resumption lag following a high-demand interruption. There was an significant interaction between age and interruption demand: there was no significant differences between resumption lag times for younger adults. The task resumption lag time following a low-demand interruption was significantly shorter than in the high-demand condition for pre-old and older adults. In the low-demand condition, younger adults were significantly quicker to resume the task than older adults. In the high-demand condition, they were significantly quicker to resume than both pre-old and older adults. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 318 to 336 | ||||||||
IIA-N vs. RLT-L vs. RLT-H | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Times have been log-transformed to correct positive skew. Younger adults had significantly shorter task resumption lag times than pre-old and older adults. The no-interruption condition's inter-action interval was significantly shorter than the task resumption lag following a high-demand interruption, and marginally shorter than the task resumption lag following a low-demand interruption. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 329 to 351 | ||||||||
Questionnaire Results (Global) | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Fatigue | |||||||
> > | There were no significant differences in self-reported fatigue levels across age groups or interruption demand conditions, nor were there interactions. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Mental Demand | |||||||
> > | Mental Demand Younger adults reported marginally lower levels of mental demand than older adults. Pre-old adults reported significantly lower levels of mental demand than older adults. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 345 to 371 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | General Annoyance | |||||||
> > | General Annoyance Younger adults reported the task to be significantly less annoying pre-old adults. The no-interruption condition was reported to be significantly less annoying than the low-demand and high-demand conditions. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 355 to 383 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Interruption Annoyance | |||||||
> > | Interruption Annoyance The low-demand interruptions were reported to be significantly less annoying than high-demand interruptions. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 364 to 394 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Performance | |||||||
> > | Performance Younger adults reported to have marginally higher performance than older adults. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 372 to 404 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Physical Demand | |||||||
> > | Physical Demand There were no significant differences in self-reported physical demand across age groups or interruption demand conditions, nor were there interactions. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 382 to 416 | ||||||||
Completion Time (Local) | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Younger adults were significantly faster than older adults. There was a significant interaction between age and interruption demand: in the no-interruption and high-demand conditions, younger adults are significantly faster than older adults. Pre-old adults are marginally faster than older adults in the high-demand condition. There are no significant differences between the groups in the low-demand condition. Younger adults are marginally faster in the high-demand condition than in the low-demand condition. Pre-old adults do not differ significantly between conditions. Older adults are marginally faster in the low-demand condition than in the no-interruption condition. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 409 to 445 | ||||||||
Score (Local) | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Younger adults scored marginally higher than older adults. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 420 to 458 | ||||||||
RLT-L vs. RLT-H | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Younger adults resumed the task significantly faster than older adults. There was a significant interaction between age and interruption demand: young adults resume the task significantly faster following a high-demand interruption than following a low-demand interruption. The pre-old adults did not differ significantly between conditions. The older adults resumed a task marginally faster in the low-demand condition than in the high-demand condition. There were no significant differences in resumption lag time between the age groups in the low-demand conditions. In the high-demand condition, younger adults resume the task significantly faster than older adults, and marginally faster than pre-old adults. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 438 to 479 | ||||||||
IIA-N vs. RLT-L vs. RLT-H | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Younger adults resumed the task significantly faster than older adults. The time to resume the task following a low-demand or high-demand interruption was faster than the interaction interval in the no-interruption condition. There was a significant interaction between age and interruption demand: young adults resume the task significantly faster following a high-demand interruption than following a low-demand interruption, and this resumption lag time is faster than their inter-action interval in the no-interruption condition. The older adults' resumption lag time following a low-demand interruption is significantly faster than their interaction interval in the no-interruption condition. In the no-interruption and high-demand conditions, younger adults have a significantly shorter inter-action interval than older adults. There are no significant differences in between age groups in the low-demand condition. The pre-old adults do not differ significantly between conditions. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 459 to 502 | ||||||||
Questionnaire Results (Global) | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Fatigue | |||||||
> > | There were no significant differences in self-reported fatigue levels across age groups or interruption demand conditions, nor were there interactions. Fatigue | |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Mental Demand | |||||||
> > | Mental Demand Younger adults reported the task to be marginally less demanding than older adults. Pre-old adults reported the task to be significantly less demanding than older adults. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 473 to 520 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | General Annoyance | |||||||
> > | General Annoyance The no-interruption and low-demand condition were reported to be marginally less annoying than the high-demand condition. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 482 to 531 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Interruption Annoyance | |||||||
> > | Interruption Annoyance There were no significant differences in self-reported interruption annoyance across age groups or interruption demand conditions, nor were there interactions. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Performance | |||||||
> > | Performance Younger adults reported performing significantly better than older adults. They reported a drop in performance in the low-demand condition, then an increase in performance in the high-demand condition (marginally significant). Older adults reported an increase in performance in the low-demand condition (not significant), then a decrease in performance in the high-demand condition (significant). In the no-interruption condition, younger adults reported significantly higher performance than older adults. In the high-demand condition, both younger and pre-old adults reported significantly higher performance than older adults. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 510 to 563 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Physical Demand | |||||||
> > | Physical Demand There were no significant differences in self-reported physical demand across age groups or interruption demand conditions, nor were there interactions. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Other Factors | |||||||
> > | Other Factors (Local) | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > | Other factors were examined to ensure the validity of results (at local level only). | |||||||
N-Back | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | N-back scores were at ceiling levels throughout the experiment, indicating that participants generally attended to the n-back task. Younger adults were score significantly higher than pre-old and older adults. There was no effect of task on n-back score, nor did age or task interact. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 534 to 591 | ||||||||
Interruption Condition Ordering (N-L-H) | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | The main task order had no main effect on score or completion time for Sentence Comprehension, but it interacted with age and interruption demand on log completion time. It had a marginal main effect on score in Square Puzzles. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Main Task Ordering (SC-!SqP) | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | The main task order had no main effect on score or completion time for both tasks, but it interacted with age on Square Puzzle log completion time. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
SC Bank order (A-B-C) | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | The Sentence Comprehension bank order had no effect on score, but interacted with age and interruption demand on log completion time. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
SqP Bank order (A-B-C) | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | The Square Puzzles bank order had no effect on log completion time, but interacted with age and interruption demand on score. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Experimenter & Apparatus | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > | The experimenter and computer used had no effect on log completion time or score for either task.
| |||||||
Location | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | The location of the experiment had no effect on log completion time or score for either task. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
2-group analysis
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Local completion time (Across Tasks)Younger adults are significantly faster than older adults. Sentence Comprehension is faster than Square Puzzles. There are significant interactions between interruption demand and age, between task and interruption demand, and between age, interruption demand, and task.
Local completion time (SC)Younger adults are significantly faster than older adults. The no-interruption and low-demand interruption conditions are significantly faster than the high-demand condition.
Local completion time (SqP)Younger adults are significantly faster than older adults. There is a significant interaction between interruption demand and age: younger adults are slower in low-demand interruption condition than in other conditions, while older adults are faster in low-demand interruption condition than in other conditions.
Local score (Across Tasks)Younger adults score significantly higher than older adults. There is a significant interaction between interruption demand and age: younger adults have lower scores in low-demand interruption condition than in other conditions, while older adults have highest score in no-interruption condition, and lowest score in high-demand interruption condition.
Local score (SC)Younger adults score significantly higher than older adults. Scores decrease marginally as interruption workload increases.
Local score (SqP)Younger adults score significantly higher than older adults. There is a marginal interaction between interruption demand and age: younger adults have lower scores in low-demand interruption condition than in other conditions, while older adults have highest score in no-interruption condition, and lowest score in high-demand interruption condition.
Global completion time(Across Tasks)Younger adults are significantly faster than older adults. The no-interruption condition significantly faster than high-demand interruption condition. The no-interruption condition is marginally faster than the low-demand interruption condition. Sentence Comprehension is faster than Square Puzzles.
Global completion time(SC)Younger adults are significantly faster than older adults. The no-interruption condition is significantly faster than the high-demand interruption condition.
Global completion time(SqP)Younger adults are marginally faster than older adults. The no-interruption condition is marginally faster than the low-demand interruption condition.
| |||||||
Notes |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 92 to 92 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Results
Across Tasks (Sentence Comprehension & Square Puzzles)
Completion Time
Local
Global
Score
Local
Global
Task Resumption Lag Time (Local)
RLT-L vs. RLT-H
IIA-N vs. RLT-L vs. RLT-H
Within Tasks
Sentence ComprehensionCompletion Time (Local)
Score (Local)
Task Resumption Lag Time (Local)RLT-L vs. RLT-H
IIA-N vs. RLT-L vs. RLT-H
Questionnaire Results (Global)
Square PuzzlesCompletion Time (Local)
Score (Local)
Task Resumption Lag Time (Local)RLT-L vs. RLT-H
IIA-N vs. RLT-L vs. RLT-H
Questionnaire Results (Global)Fatigue
Other Factors
N-Back
Interruption Condition Ordering (N-L-H)
Main Task Ordering (SC-!SqP)
SC Bank order (A-B-C)
SqP Bank order (A-B-C)
Experimenter & Apparatus
Location
2-group analysis
| |||||||
NotesOne's performance on C-TOC and other similar applications will likely be affected by interruptions and distractions. This study examines the nature of disruptions caused by interruptions in the C-TOC test-taker's environment, and how these disruptions interact with the age of the test-taker. Previous research relating to interruptions in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI) focuses predominantly on younger adults in workplace settings. A body of HCI research on the design of information and communication technology for older adults is similarly well established, yet is disjoint from research pertaining to interruptions and distractions. This research project attempts to unify these research areas. A decline in higher cognitive functioning and prospective memory in old age has been well documented in the cognitive psychology literature. As such, it is hypothesized that the effect of interruptions may interact with the age of the test-taker. Our mixed experimental design involves 3 factors: a between-subjects factor of age and a within-subjects factor of interruption demand. Our dependent measures include performance scores (i.e. completion time and accuracy) on a small subset of tests in the C-TOC battery. We will be recruiting an equal number of cognitively-healthy participants from 3 age groups: 19-54, 55-69, and more than 70 years old. Throughout each of the C-TOC tests used in this study, participants will experience three levels of interruption demand in the form of 20-second distraction tasks. Our aim is to learn how interruption demand interacts with age. We will additionally rely on self-reports to acquire an understanding of task resumption strategies employed by participants in the three age groups. This knowledge will hopefully guide the design of features in C-TOC pertaining to interruption mitigation and task resumption. Such knowledge would also be an important contribution to the broader HCI community, especially valuable for those designing tools for older adults. |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Abstract | |||||||
> > | MethodologyIt is hypothesized that the effect of interruptions may interact with the age of the test-taker and the type of task being interruped. This mixed experimental design involves three factors: age, level of interruption demand, and type of main task. We will additionally rely on self-reports to acquire an understanding of task resumption strategies employed by participants in three age groups.ApparatusHalf of the experimental sessions were conducted using a Lenovo ThinkPad T400 with a 2.26Ghz Core 2 Duo processor and 1.92 GB RAM, while the remaining sessions were conducted using and an IBM ThinkPad T43 with a 2.0GHz Pentium M processor and 1GB + 512MB RAM. Both laptop computers were running the Windows XP operating system. Both computers were connected to a 17 inch diagonal display, with a resolution of 1024 by 768 pixels; the laptop displays were not used. A logitech M110 optical mouse was used with both laptops; identical mouse gains and tracking speeds were used. For the experimental tasks, the screen was positioned the screen at a comfortable viewing angle. The experimental software was an Adobe AIR application written using the Adobe Flex 4.0 SDK.ParticipantsWe are recruiting 12 participants from three age groups, for a total of 36 participants: Young (19-54), Pre-Old (55-69), and Old (70+). The naming of these age groups is based on accepted terminology in the ageing literature. [Rimkus, A., Melinchok, M. D., McEvoy, K., & Yeager, A. K. (Eds.) (2005). Thesaurus of Aging Terminology. Eighth ed. AARP.]The justification for these groupings rests on the age-related changes that occur in cognition, notably that higher cognitive function remains relatively stable up to about age 55, after which there is a small decline, followed by a much steeper one after 70. [Craik, F. I. M., & Salthouse, T. A. (Eds.) (1992). The Handbook of Aging and Cognition. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.] Participants receive $5 for each half hour of participation. We are recruiting younger participants through advertisements on campus and through word-of-mouth advertisement. Older participants were recruited through word-of-mouth advertisement and a postings in the community. To participate, all participants must be free of any diagnosed cognitive impairments or motor impairments to their right hand, and have normal or corrected-to-normal eyesight. We administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test [CITATION] to help ensure that participants are not cognitively impaired. A score of 26 / 30 or higher is considered normal. Additionally, we administered the North American Adult Reading Test (NAART) [B. Uttl. North american adult reading test: Age norms, reliability, and validity. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24(8):1123–1137, 2002.] to help ensure participants had sufficient English fluency to follow our instructions. The NAART is a quick to administer test measuring verbal intelligence, which requires participants to read a list of 59 words increasing in difficulty. Using a somewhat arbitrary threshold, we accept only participants who get at least 25% of the words correct. Participants who do not have a normal MoCA score or those who do not meet our NAART threshold completed a shorter version of the study, but their data is not included in our analysis.TasksTo gain a better understanding of how interruption demand and age interact with task type, two main tasks were used in this study. Both tasks were adapted from C-TOC tests: Sentence Comprehension and Square Puzzles. Sentence Comprehension (Figure X) tests verbal memory, wherein each trial is comprised of an instruction step and an execution step. The instruction screen displays 1-2 sentences instructing the user to arrange coloured geometric figures. The user clicks a 'Continue' button to advance to the execution screen, where geometric figures are to be arranged as per the instruction. Square Puzzles (Figure Y) tests non-verbal spatial reasoning, wherein each trial is comprised of a single screen. The user is instructed to move lines to create a certain number of complete squares in a specified number of moves, without leaving any incomplete squares. A participant can proceed to the next trial at any time by clicking on the 'Next' button at the bottom-right corner of the screen. Two interruption tasks were used in this study, corresponding to two levels of interruption demand. The interrupting tasks occupy the entire screen, occluding the main task. Interrupting tasks are preceded by an interruption notification, in which a red banner bearing the message 'Interruption Pending' flashes for 2 seconds at the top of the screen; during this time all interactivity is disabled. Once begun, both interruption tasks display an automated sequence of a dozen cartoon images inside a box outline in the middle of the display. There is no fixed order to the presentation of images; each image is selected semi-randomly from a bank of ten images. Each image is displayed for 1500ms; no image is displayed in the box for 100ms between successive images. The total length of the interrupting tasks is approximately 19 seconds. At the end of an interrupting task, the user is prompted to click in order to dismiss the interruption, returning to the interrupted main task. Interruption types are visually differentiated by a coloured instruction at the top of the screen. In the low-demand interrupting task, the user is prompted, in red font, to watch the sequence of images passively. The high-demand interrupting task (Figure Z) is a visual n-back memory game [CITATION], which is known to place high demand on working memory. In this task, the user is prompted, in green font, to click inside the box whenever the current image repeats what was shown 2 images prior to the current image. Feedback is displayed adjacent to the box outline in the form of a green check icon for correct responses (true positives), while a red 'x' icon is displayed for incorrect answers (false positives and false negatives). No feedback is shown for true negatives. The random sequence of images is weighted such that there is a 40% probability that any given image will repeat what was shown 2 images prior, otherwise the image is selected randomly.DesignThe experiment used a mixed design with two counterbalanced main tasks and three counterbalanced levels of interruption demand: 3 (age groups: young, pre-old, and old) x 2 (main tasks: Sentence Comprehension and Square Puzzles) x 3 (interruption demand: none, low, and high). Age was the only between-subjects factor. Each participant completed 30 trials in the Sentence Comprehension task, and 24 trials in the Square Puzzles task. In both main tasks, three isomorphic trial blocks were used for the three conditions of interruption demand, comprised of trials increasing in difficulty. An equivalent level of difficulty between trials was not attempted, as the original C-TOC tests from which our tasks were adapted also increase in difficulty. For both main tasks, each participant was assigned one of the six possible trial block permutations at random. Each Sentence Comprehension trial block contained 10 trials, wherein a subset of 4 trials were interrupted. This subset of trials was determined randomly with the restriction that interruptions could not occur on 4 successive trials and that no interruption may occur on the first trial in a block of trials. The same subset of trials received interruptions in conditions of low and high interuption demand. Interruption onsets were fixed in that they would occur shortly after beginning the execution phase of a trial, with a short lag corresponding to increasing trial difficulty. Each Square Puzzles trial block contained 8 trials, wherein a subset of 3 trials were interrupted. This subset of trials was determined in the same fashion as in the Sentence Comprehension task. The same subset of trials received interruptions in conditions of low and high interuption demand. Interruption onsets were fixed in that they would occur after a 500ms lag upon the completion of the first move operation in a 2-move puzzle; in a 3-move puzzle, an interruption would occur after the completion of the first or second move operation, with equal likelihood.ProcedureThe experiment was designed to fit into a single 120 minute session. All participants finished in between 60 minutes and 100 minutes. We began with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the North American Adult Reading Test. Participants then received practice on both types of interrupting tasks: 1 practice trial was performed of the low-demand interrupting task and two practice trials was performed of the high-demand interrupting task. A 3rd practice trial was offered if performance on the high-demand interrupting task was still poor after two practice trials. We then presented the first task (either Sentence Comprehension or Square Puzzles). An example trial was provided to familiarize the participants with the mechanics of the task. Participants were instructed to perform each task both as quickly and as accurately as possible. For the Square Puzzles task, participants were additionally instructed to not perform more than the specified number of moves, and to not leave remaining incomplete squares. Following this, a practice block of three trials was completed; during this set, the second trial was interrupted with a low-demand interrupting task, while the third trial was interrupted with a high-demand interrupting task. Participants then completed 3 blocks of trials of the first task. After each block, participants completed a short workload and fatigue survey. They then completed their second task. Upon completion of the experimental trials, participants were subject to a brief interview regarding their perceptions of task difficulty and their strategies for task resumption following an interruption.MeasuresWe included measures of speed and accuracy. In Sentence Comprehension, we measured trial time as the uninterrupted time elapsed during the execution step of the trial until the participant clicks to proceed to the next trial; time spent in the instruction step was recorded separately. In Square Puzzles, we measured trial time as the total uninterruped time elapsed between the start of the trials and when the participant clicks to proceed to the next trial. Additionally, the average time interval between valid move operations was determined for each trial. For interrupted trials, we also recorded the interruption dismissal lag time, the task resumption time following an interruption, and the average interval between valid move operations prior to and following an interruption. We included several measures of accuracy in both main tasks. The scoring scheme for these tasks was adapted from clinical scoring schemes and from the scoring scheme used in the C-TOC validity testing project. Accuracy scores were determined by the experimenter. A screen capture video of the entire experimental sesssion was recorded, which could be used to confirm scores. Each Sentence Comprehension trial has a possible total score based on the number of geometric figures the participant is instructed to arrange and the relative positioning of these figures upon completion. Each Square Puzzles trial has a possible total score based on the number of complete squares; points are deducted for each additional move operation and each incomplete square. For both main tasks, we additionally recorded the number of completed move operations, invalid moves, aborted moves, and clicks in each trial. Performance accuracy on the high-demand interrupting task was also recorded, including the number of true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives for each trial.HypothesesWe had the following hypotheses for this study: H1. Age will interact with the presence of interruptions; older adults will perform proportionally worse on interruped trials than on corresponding uninterrupted trials. H2. High-demand interruptions will incur worse performance than low-demand interruptions; interruption demand may interact with age such that older adults perform proportionally worse on trials interrupted with a high-demand interrupting task than on corresponding trials interrupted with a low-demand interrupting task. H3. Interruptions will incur worse performance on the Sentence Comprehension task than on the Square Puzzles task; a three-way interaction between level of interruption demand, main task type, and age is also expected. H4. Self-reports regarding the disruptive effects of interruptions are expected to reinforce H1-H3.Planned AnalysisAnalysis 1: To determine the local effects of interruption disruption in terms of speed and accuracy, we plan to conduct a 3 (age) x 3 (interruption demand) x [3,4] (trial) mixed-factor ANOVA for both Sentence Comprehension and Square Puzzles. We will only consider performance data from the subset of trials that are interrupted in the two interruption conditions, along with the corresponding subset of trials in the uninterrupted condition; results from the remainder of uninterrupted trials in each condition are discarded. Therefore, each subject will generate 12 Sentence Comprehension data points (4 in each interruption condition), and 9 Square Puzzle data points (3 in each interruption condition). The main effect of trial is not of interest, as the difficulty differences between trials are known to us. Similarly, the interactions of trial with age or interruption demand are also of little interest. This analysis will address H1 and H2, to determine if there are interactions between age and level of interruption demand. Analysis 2: To determine the global effects of interruption disruption, we are to conduct a 3 (age) x 3 (interruption demand) x 2 (main task) mixed-factor ANOVA. A main effect of task is expected and is not of interest. We are, however, interested in the presence of any interaction between of task, age, and interruption demand, which will address H3. For this analysis, a normalized performance score and completion time is calculated for each block of trials, such that each participant will generate 6 data points (3 from each main task).Preliminary ResultsPreliminary findings indicate that there may be a three-way interaction between user age, level of interruption demand, and the requirements of the C-TOC test undertaken by the user. Research participants have reported that interruptions are more disruptive to their performance during a verbal Sentence Comprehension task than during the non-verbal Square Puzzles task. Our analyses will examine whether test performance is proportionally worse when high-demand interruptions are present, versus low-demand interruption and control conditions. The initial findings appear to suggest that technological interventions for mitigating the impact of interruptions and for ensuring the validity of the test scores could be developed to be specific to each type of test in the C-TOC battery.Notes | |||||||
One's performance on C-TOC and other similar applications will likely be affected by interruptions and distractions. This study examines the nature of disruptions caused by interruptions in the C-TOC test-taker's environment, and how these disruptions interact with the age of the test-taker. Previous research relating to interruptions in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI) focuses predominantly on younger adults in workplace settings. A body of HCI research on the design of information and communication technology for older adults is similarly well established, yet is disjoint from research pertaining to interruptions and distractions. This research project attempts to unify these research areas. A decline in higher cognitive functioning and prospective memory in old age has been well documented in the cognitive psychology literature. As such, it is hypothesized that the effect of interruptions may interact with the age of the test-taker. Our mixed experimental design involves 3 factors: a between-subjects factor of age and a within-subjects factor of interruption demand. Our dependent measures include performance scores (i.e. completion time and accuracy) on a small subset of tests in the C-TOC battery. We will be recruiting an equal number of cognitively-healthy participants from 3 age groups: 19-54, 55-69, and more than 70 years old. Throughout each of the C-TOC tests used in this study, participants will experience three levels of interruption demand in the form of 20-second distraction tasks. Our aim is to learn how interruption demand interacts with age. We will additionally rely on self-reports to acquire an understanding of task resumption strategies employed by participants in the three age groups. This knowledge will hopefully guide the design of features in C-TOC pertaining to interruption mitigation and task resumption. Such knowledge would also be an important contribution to the broader HCI community, especially valuable for those designing tools for older adults. |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 21 to 21 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 29 to 29 | ||||||||
Planned Analyses | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Analysis 1: To determine the local effects of interruption disruption (specific to interrupted trials), we are to conduct a 3 (age, BS) x 3 (interruption demand, WS) mixed-factor ANOVA. | |||||||
> > | Analysis 1: To determine the local effects of interruption disruption (specific to interrupted trials), we are to conduct a 3 (age, BS) x 3 (interruption demand, WS) x [3,4] (trial, WS) mixed-factor ANOVA for both SC and SqP. Main effect of trial is not interesting, neither are interactions of trial with age or interruption demand. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Analysis 2: To determine the global effects of interruption disruption, we are to conduct a 3 (age, BS) x 3 (interruption demand, WS) x 2 (main task, WS) mixed-factor ANOVA. | |||||||
> > | Analysis 2: To determine the global effects of interruption disruption, we are to conduct a 3 (age, BS) x 3 (interruption demand, WS) x 2 (main task, WS) mixed-factor ANOVA. Main effect of task is expected, not interesting; interaction effects of task with age, interruption demand are interesting. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Potential covariates, other recorded DVs: |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 55 to 55 | ||||||||
Notes:
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Other potential factors (not addressed) | |||||||
> > | Other Factors (unsupported or for future work) | |||||||
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 27 to 27 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Dependent measures and potential covariates | |||||||
> > | Planned Analyses | |||||||
Analysis 1: To determine the local effects of interruption disruption (specific to interrupted trials), we are to conduct a 3 (age, BS) x 3 (interruption demand, WS) mixed-factor ANOVA.
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Analysis 2: To determine the global effects of interruption disruption, we are to conduct a 3 (age, BS) x 3 (interruption demand, WS) x 2 (main task, WS) mixed-factor ANOVA.
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Potential covariates, other recorded DVs: |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 14 to 14 | ||||||||
Experiment | ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | 3 (age, BS) x 3 (interruption demand, WS) mixed-factor ANOVA design. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | Other potential factors (not addressed)
| |||||||
Dependent measures and potential covariates | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > | Analysis 1: To determine the local effects of interruption disruption (specific to interrupted trials), we are to conduct a 3 (age, BS) x 3 (interruption demand, WS) mixed-factor ANOVA. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Notes:
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Other potential factors (not addressed)
Participants
| |||||||
Tasks2 adapted and programmed C-TOC cognitive tests (one verbal, one nonverbal); | ||||||||
Line: 78 to 88 | ||||||||
Procedure
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 98 to 108 | ||||||||
There are 12 unique orderings for each subject group, see the attached .xls. It will be necessary for the experimenter to refer to this lookup table while completing the initialization screen before the participant begins the experiment. | ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | Participants
| |||||||
HypothesesAge-interaction effects in H1-4 are explained by theories of cognitive ageing: a decrease in working memory [Craik 82], [Hasher 88] - inhibition theory, a loss of sensory acuity [Lindenberger 94], a drop in processing speed [Salthouse 96]; increased distractibility and interruptibility in old age, resulting from decreased ability to suppress some stimuli and enhance others; |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 6 to 6 | ||||||||
Abstract | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | As we begin to understand the disruptions caused by interruptions for older adults, we will identify important implications for the design of self-administered cognitive tests. Previous research relating to interruptions in HCI tends to focus on younger adults in workplace settings. A body of HCI research on ICT for older adults is similarly well established, and yet disjoint from research pertaining to interruptions and distractions. With respect to computerised cognitive testing, a scenario might arise in which an older adult has just performed a memory encoding component of a test, is interrupted by a telephone call or doorbell, then returns minutes later to the memory recall component of the same test. My research questions include: (1) how do interruptions and distractions affect the validity of these and other multi-step or time critical tasks? and (2) how can we design ICT that uses prompts to assist older users, thereby ensuring effective task resumption? A decline in higher cognitive functioning and prospective memory in old age has been well documented in the psychology literature; as such, I can hypothesise the following: (1) older users will differ from younger users, both quantitatively and qualitatively, in the amount and nature of task disruption, as well as in task performance upon resumption; (2) older adults using ICT will need novel solutions for attenuating the negative effects of interruptions and distractions. | |||||||
> > | One's performance on C-TOC and other similar applications will likely be affected by interruptions and distractions. This study examines the nature of disruptions caused by interruptions in the C-TOC test-taker's environment, and how these disruptions interact with the age of the test-taker. Previous research relating to interruptions in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI) focuses predominantly on younger adults in workplace settings. A body of HCI research on the design of information and communication technology for older adults is similarly well established, yet is disjoint from research pertaining to interruptions and distractions. This research project attempts to unify these research areas. A decline in higher cognitive functioning and prospective memory in old age has been well documented in the cognitive psychology literature. As such, it is hypothesized that the effect of interruptions may interact with the age of the test-taker. Our mixed experimental design involves 3 factors: a between-subjects factor of age and a within-subjects factor of interruption demand. Our dependent measures include performance scores (i.e. completion time and accuracy) on a small subset of tests in the C-TOC battery. We will be recruiting an equal number of cognitively-healthy participants from 3 age groups: 19-54, 55-69, and more than 70 years old. Throughout each of the C-TOC tests used in this study, participants will experience three levels of interruption demand in the form of 20-second distraction tasks. Our aim is to learn how interruption demand interacts with age. We will additionally rely on self-reports to acquire an understanding of task resumption strategies employed by participants in the three age groups. This knowledge will hopefully guide the design of features in C-TOC pertaining to interruption mitigation and task resumption. Such knowledge would also be an important contribution to the broader HCI community, especially valuable for those designing tools for older adults. | |||||||
Related work | ||||||||
Line: 14 to 14 | ||||||||
Experiment | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | 3 (age, BS) x 3 (interruption type, WS) x 2 (main task, WS) mixed design. | |||||||
> > | 3 (age, BS) x 3 (interruption demand, WS) mixed-factor ANOVA design. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | *2 main tasks, 8 trials in SqP, 10 trials in SC, 3 banks of isomorphic trials increasing in difficulty; difficulty gauged by number of actions required and complexity of instruction for SC puzzles, gauged by number of lines moved for SqP puzzles; ordering of task banks randomly assigned; subsets of trials in which interruptions occur are randomly generated, with constraint that interruptions are evenly spread across difficulty levels (in SC, 1 interruption on an easy puzzle, 2 on medium puzzles, and 1 on a hard puzzle); for both tasks, interruptions occur on the same subset of trials between interruption conditions; in SC trial banks, interruptions occur after a fixed onset of time as a function of task difficulty; in SqP trial banks, interruptions occur after a short delay (500ms) following the first move in 2-move trials; for 3-move puzzles, there is a 50% probability of the interruption being triggered by the first move, and a 50% probability of the interruption being triggered by the second move; no interruptions occur for a 1-move SqP puzzle, nor for the first SC puzzle; | |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Other potential factors (not addressed) | |||||||
> > | Other potential factors (not addressed) | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Dependent measures | |||||||
> > | Dependent measures and potential covariates | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
Tasks | ||||||||
Line: 60 to 77 | ||||||||
Procedure | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Regarding the state of the software, I have automated the main task ordering, the interruption sequence for 3 task sets (for each of the 2 main tasks), and the subset of tasks within each task set on which interruptions occur, which is completed using an initialization screen by the experimenter. This is followed by the main portal UI to the 12 possible interactive states (SC demo, SC training, SC_{A,B,C}, SqP demo, SqP training set, SqP_{A,B,C}, low-demand interrupt demo and high-demand interrupt demo). If the main task-order is set SC-SqP on it initialization screen, SqP options on the main portal UI are disabled until all SC states are completed, and vice versa; also after a task set is completed its portal link becomes disabled. The main 12-button portal is needed to allow users to experience the demo states more than once, and to permit users a short break between task sets, and to serve as visual indication to the user of what remains to be done. If you want I can show you this before our next meeting at your convenience. | |||||||
> > | Note:
| |||||||
As per subject-task-interrupt sequence/ordering in my experiment, the following factors are involved: - 2 main tasks (SC and SqP) - important to counterbalance within each age group | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | - 3 task sets (ABC) orderings for both main tasks, randomly assigned at run-time | |||||||
> > | - 3 trial banks (ABC) orderings for both main tasks, randomly assigned at run-time | |||||||
- 3 interruption conditions (none, low, high) with 6 possible permutations, also important to counterbalance within each age group - subsets of trials within each task set on which interruptions occur (i.e. interruptions on trials #3,5,7,9 or interruptions on trials #2,4,6,8), are randomly assigned, with the restriction that interruptions are spread across difficulty levels in both tasks | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | This gives us a total of 436 possible orderings, x 3 age groups, with a maximum of 24 participants per age group. There are 24 unique orderings for each subject group, see the attached .xls. It will be necessary for the experimenter to refer to this lookup table while completing the initialization screen before the participant begins the experiment. | |||||||
> > | There are 12 unique orderings for each subject group, see the attached .xls. It will be necessary for the experimenter to refer to this lookup table while completing the initialization screen before the participant begins the experiment. | |||||||
Participants |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 128 to 128 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 20 to 20 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > | *2 main tasks, 8 trials in SqP, 10 trials in SC, 3 banks of isomorphic trials increasing in difficulty; difficulty gauged by number of actions required and complexity of instruction for SC puzzles, gauged by number of lines moved for SqP puzzles; ordering of task banks randomly assigned; subsets of trials in which interruptions occur are randomly generated, with constraint that interruptions are evenly spread across difficulty levels (in SC, 1 interruption on an easy puzzle, 2 on medium puzzles, and 1 on a hard puzzle); for both tasks, interruptions occur on the same subset of trials between interruption conditions; in SC trial banks, interruptions occur after a fixed onset of time as a function of task difficulty; in SqP trial banks, interruptions occur after a short delay (500ms) following the first move in 2-move trials; for 3-move puzzles, there is a 50% probability of the interruption being triggered by the first move, and a 50% probability of the interruption being triggered by the second move; no interruptions occur for a 1-move SqP puzzle, nor for the first SC puzzle; | |||||||
Other potential factors (not addressed) | ||||||||
Line: 29 to 29 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Dependent measures | ||||||||
Line: 37 to 39 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Tasks | ||||||||
Line: 69 to 71 | ||||||||
As per subject-task-interrupt sequence/ordering in my experiment, the following factors are involved: - 2 main tasks (SC and SqP) - important to counterbalance within each age group | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | - 3 task sets (ABC) with 6 possible isomorphic permutations, so not necessary to counterbalance | |||||||
> > | - 3 task sets (ABC) orderings for both main tasks, randomly assigned at run-time | |||||||
- 3 interruption conditions (none, low, high) with 6 possible permutations, also important to counterbalance within each age group | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | - 6 subsets of trials within each task set on which interruptions occur (i.e. interruptions on trials #3,5,7,9 or interruptions on trials #2,4,6,8), which I created myself and were derived based on individual puzzle difficulty | |||||||
> > | - subsets of trials within each task set on which interruptions occur (i.e. interruptions on trials #3,5,7,9 or interruptions on trials #2,4,6,8), are randomly assigned, with the restriction that interruptions are spread across difficulty levels in both tasks | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | This gives us a total of 436 possible orderings, x 3 age groups, with a maximum of 24 participants per age group. Since task sets are deliberately isomorphic in difficulty, we can limit our choices to two task set orderings (i.e. 12 participants in each group using ABC, and the other 12 using CAB), such that no two participants in a single age group receive the same combination of interruption trial subset, interruption set ordering, and task set ordering. Since the 2 main tasks are independent of one another, the same ordering (ABC or CAB) can be used for both SC and SqP. | |||||||
> > | This gives us a total of 436 possible orderings, x 3 age groups, with a maximum of 24 participants per age group. | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | There are 24 unique orderings for each subject group, see the attached .xls. Interruption trial subsets and interruption conditions could be specified advance. It will be necessary for the experimenter to refer to this lookup table while completing the initialization screen before the participant begins the experiment. | |||||||
> > | There are 24 unique orderings for each subject group, see the attached .xls. It will be necessary for the experimenter to refer to this lookup table while completing the initialization screen before the participant begins the experiment. | |||||||
Participants | ||||||||
Line: 86 to 88 | ||||||||
Age-interaction effects in H1-4 are explained by theories of cognitive ageing: a decrease in working memory [Craik 82], [Hasher 88] - inhibition theory, a loss of sensory acuity [Lindenberger 94], a drop in processing speed [Salthouse 96]; increased distractibility and interruptibility in old age, resulting from decreased ability to suppress some stimuli and enhance others; | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
Former Hypotheses
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Implications of hypotheses | |||||||
> > | Implications of hypotheses | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 107 to 116 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 117 to 127 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 14 to 14 | ||||||||
Experiment | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | 3 (age, BS) x 2 (interruption type, WS) x 2 (main task instruction, WS) x 2 (main task, WS) mixed design. | |||||||
> > | 3 (age, BS) x 3 (interruption type, WS) x 2 (main task, WS) mixed design. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Other potential factors | |||||||
> > |
Other potential factors (not addressed) | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 38 to 32 | ||||||||
Dependent measures | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Tasks | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | 2 adapted and programmed C-TOC cognitive tests (one verbal, one nonverbal); two types of task instruction, one of which has emphasis on speed, favouring reaction time and response speed, and another which has emphasis on accuracy (time is not as heavily weighed), but rather favours accuracy and precision in responses, and careful planning/executive functioning. | |||||||
> > | 2 adapted and programmed C-TOC cognitive tests (one verbal, one nonverbal); | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Interruption tasks: one simple/unrelated (computerised) (i.e. simulated phone call/registration task? simple letter fluency); one complex/conflicting (computerised) (complex letter fluency, verbal fluency task, listing task [Farrimond 06] - one which would conflict with verbal memory), (puzzle task - sorting or arranging for nonverbal interruption) | |||||||
> > | Computerized Interruption tasks: one low-demand (passive n-back); the other high-demand (active n-back); interruptions have a fixed onset for SC tasks, depending on the difficulty of the SC task (number of moves and complexity of instruction taken into consideration), identical between 3 isomorphic SC task sets); interruptions occur in SqP after short random interval after moving 1st line (or with some probability after 2nd line in 3-line puzzles); 3 SqP task banks also isomorphic;
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 57 to 54 | ||||||||
Materials | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Procedure | ||||||||
Line: 69 to 62 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Participants | ||||||||
Line: 83 to 90 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Implications of hypotheses | ||||||||
Line: 109 to 116 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 77 to 77 | ||||||||
Hypotheses | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Age-interaction effects in H1-4 are explained by theories of cognitive ageing: a decrease in working memory [Craik 82], [Hasher 88] - inhibition theory, a loss of sensory acuity [Lindenberger 94], a drop in processing speed [Salthouse 96]; increased distractibility and interruptibility in old age, resulting from decreased ability to suppress some stimuli and enhance others; | |||||||
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 85 to 85 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 104 to 102 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | future work)
| |||||||
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 47 to 47 | ||||||||
2 adapted and programmed C-TOC cognitive tests (one verbal, one nonverbal); two types of task instruction, one of which has emphasis on speed, favouring reaction time and response speed, and another which has emphasis on accuracy (time is not as heavily weighed), but rather favours accuracy and precision in responses, and careful planning/executive functioning. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Interruption tasks: one simple/unrelated (non-computerised) (i.e. simulated phone call/registration task? simple letter fluency); one complex/conflicting (computerised) (complex letter fluency, verbal fluency task, listing task [Farrimond 06] - one which would conflict with verbal memory), (puzzle task - sorting or arranging for nonverbal interruption) | |||||||
> > | Interruption tasks: one simple/unrelated (computerised) (i.e. simulated phone call/registration task? simple letter fluency); one complex/conflicting (computerised) (complex letter fluency, verbal fluency task, listing task [Farrimond 06] - one which would conflict with verbal memory), (puzzle task - sorting or arranging for nonverbal interruption) | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 82 to 82 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
Implications of hypotheses
| ||||||||
Line: 103 to 105 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | future work)
| |||||||
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 57 to 57 | ||||||||
Materials | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Procedure | ||||||||
Line: 75 to 75 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Hypotheses - refine! | |||||||
> > | Hypotheses | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Implications of hypotheses |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 14 to 14 | ||||||||
Experiment | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | 2 (age, BS) x 2 (interruption type, WS) x 2 (main task instruction, WS) x 2 (main task, WS) mixed design. | |||||||
> > | 3 (age, BS) x 2 (interruption type, WS) x 2 (main task instruction, WS) x 2 (main task, WS) mixed design. | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 32 to 32 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Dependent measures
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Tasks | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | 2 adapted and programmed C-TOC cognitive tests, two types of task instruction, one of which has emphasis on speed, favouring reaction time and response speed, and another which has emphasis on accuracy (time is not as heavily weighed), but rather favours accuracy and precision in responses, and careful planning/executive functioning. | |||||||
> > | 2 adapted and programmed C-TOC cognitive tests (one verbal, one nonverbal); two types of task instruction, one of which has emphasis on speed, favouring reaction time and response speed, and another which has emphasis on accuracy (time is not as heavily weighed), but rather favours accuracy and precision in responses, and careful planning/executive functioning. | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | An embedded prospective memory retrieval/cue task in the open-ended test? Interruption tasks: one simple (and unrelated to main tasks, i.e. simulated phone call/registration task?); one complex (verbal fluency task, listing task [Farrimond 06] - one which would conflict with verbal memory), (puzzle task - sorting or arranging) | |||||||
> > | Interruption tasks: one simple/unrelated (non-computerised) (i.e. simulated phone call/registration task? simple letter fluency); one complex/conflicting (computerised) (complex letter fluency, verbal fluency task, listing task [Farrimond 06] - one which would conflict with verbal memory), (puzzle task - sorting or arranging for nonverbal interruption) | |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Materials | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Procedure | ||||||||
Line: 64 to 72 | ||||||||
Participants | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Hypotheses | |||||||
> > | Hypotheses - refine! | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 89 to 97 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 49 to 49 | ||||||||
An embedded prospective memory retrieval/cue task in the open-ended test? Interruption tasks: one simple (and unrelated to main tasks, i.e. simulated phone call/registration task?); one complex (verbal fluency task, listing task [Farrimond 06] - one which would conflict with verbal memory), (puzzle task - sorting or arranging) | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Materials | ||||||||
Line: 88 to 89 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 39 to 39 | ||||||||
Dependent measures
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Tasks | ||||||||
Line: 63 to 64 | ||||||||
Participants
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Hypotheses |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 86 to 86 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 14 to 14 | ||||||||
Experiment | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | tentative 2 (age, BS) x 2 (complexity, WS) x 2 (similarity, WS) design, one for task A (time-sensitive), one for task B (time insensitive) | |||||||
> > | 2 (age, BS) x 2 (interruption type, WS) x 2 (main task instruction, WS) x 2 (main task, WS) mixed design. | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
Factors
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Other potential factors | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Dependent measures
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Hypotheses | |||||||
> > | Tasks | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > | 2 adapted and programmed C-TOC cognitive tests, two types of task instruction, one of which has emphasis on speed, favouring reaction time and response speed, and another which has emphasis on accuracy (time is not as heavily weighed), but rather favours accuracy and precision in responses, and careful planning/executive functioning. | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > | An embedded prospective memory retrieval/cue task in the open-ended test? | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > | Interruption tasks: one simple (and unrelated to main tasks, i.e. simulated phone call/registration task?); one complex (verbal fluency task, listing task [Farrimond 06] - one which would conflict with verbal memory), (puzzle task - sorting or arranging) | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > | Materials | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > | Procedure | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Participants | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | 2-3 age groups (following from cut-off criteria from [Moffatt 10]). ~12 participants per group? | |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Tasks | |||||||
> > | Hypotheses | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | 2 adapted and programmed C-TOC cognitive tests, one of which is time-sensitive and favours reaction time and response speed (i.e. rapid recall or symbol-digit matching), and another which is not strictly timed (or at least time is not as heavily weighed), but rather favours accuracy and precision in responses, and careful planning/executive functioning. | |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | An embedded prospective memory retrieval/cue task in the open-ended test? Interruption tasks: one simple (and unrelated to main tasks, i.e. simulated phone call/registration task?); one complex (verbal fluency task, listing task [Farrimond 06] - one which would conflict with verbal memory), (puzzle task - sorting or arranging) | |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Procedure | |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Materials | |||||||
> > | Implications of hypotheses | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 8 to 8 | ||||||||
As we begin to understand the disruptions caused by interruptions for older adults, we will identify important implications for the design of self-administered cognitive tests. Previous research relating to interruptions in HCI tends to focus on younger adults in workplace settings. A body of HCI research on ICT for older adults is similarly well established, and yet disjoint from research pertaining to interruptions and distractions. With respect to computerised cognitive testing, a scenario might arise in which an older adult has just performed a memory encoding component of a test, is interrupted by a telephone call or doorbell, then returns minutes later to the memory recall component of the same test. My research questions include: (1) how do interruptions and distractions affect the validity of these and other multi-step or time critical tasks? and (2) how can we design ICT that uses prompts to assist older users, thereby ensuring effective task resumption? A decline in higher cognitive functioning and prospective memory in old age has been well documented in the psychology literature; as such, I can hypothesise the following: (1) older users will differ from younger users, both quantitatively and qualitatively, in the amount and nature of task disruption, as well as in task performance upon resumption; (2) older adults using ICT will need novel solutions for attenuating the negative effects of interruptions and distractions. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Related Work | |||||||
> > | Related work | |||||||
See ongoing notes added to the literature review page. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Hypotheses | |||||||
> > | Experimenttentative 2 (age, BS) x 2 (complexity, WS) x 2 (similarity, WS) design, one for task A (time-sensitive), one for task B (time insensitive)
Factors
Other potential factors
Dependent measures
Hypotheses | |||||||
| ||||||||
Line: 28 to 50 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | Experimental Design | |||||||
Participants2-3 age groups (following from cut-off criteria from [Moffatt 10]). ~12 participants per group? | ||||||||
Line: 56 to 76 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | Design / Factorstentative 2 (age, BS) x 2 (complexity, WS) x 2 (similarity, WS) design, one for task A (time-sensitive), one for task B (time insensitive)
Dependent Measures
| |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | -- MatthewBrehmer - 15 Sep 2010 |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interruption Lab Study | ||||||||
Line: 6 to 6 | ||||||||
Abstract | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | As we begin to understand the disruptions caused by interruptions for older adults, we will identify important implications for the design of self-administered cognitive tests. Previous research relating to interruptions in HCI tends to focus on younger adults in workplace settings. A body of HCI research on ICT for older adults is similarly well established, and yet disjoint from research pertaining to interruptions and distractions. With respect to computerised cognitive testing, a scenario might arise in which an older adult has just performed a memory encoding component of a test, is interrupted by a telephone call or doorbell, then returns minutes later to the memory recall component of the same test. My research questions include: (1) how do interruptions and distractions affect the validity of these and other multi-step or time critical tasks? and (2) how can we design ICT that uses prompts to assist older users, thereby ensuring effective task resumption? A decline in higher cognitive functioning and prospective memory in old age has been well documented in the psychology literature; as such, I can hypothesise the following: (1) older users will differ from younger users, both quantitatively and qualitatively, in the amount and nature of task disruption, as well as in task performance upon resumption; (2) older adults using ICT will need novel solutions for attenuating the negative effects of interruptions and distractions. | |||||||
Related Work | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | See ongoing notes added to the literature review page. | |||||||
Hypotheses | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Experimental DesignParticipants | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | 2-3 age groups (following from cut-off criteria from [Moffatt 10]). ~12 participants per group? | |||||||
Tasks | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | 2 adapted and programmed C-TOC cognitive tests, one of which is time-sensitive and favours reaction time and response speed (i.e. rapid recall or symbol-digit matching), and another which is not strictly timed (or at least time is not as heavily weighed), but rather favours accuracy and precision in responses, and careful planning/executive functioning. An embedded prospective memory retrieval/cue task in the open-ended test? Interruption tasks: one simple (and unrelated to main tasks, i.e. simulated phone call/registration task?); one complex (verbal fluency task, listing task [Farrimond 06] - one which would conflict with verbal memory), (puzzle task - sorting or arranging) | |||||||
Procedure | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Materials | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
Design / Factors | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | tentative 2 (age, BS) x 2 (complexity, WS) x 2 (similarity, WS) design, one for task A (time-sensitive), one for task B (time insensitive)
| |||||||
Dependent Measures | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
| |||||||
-- MatthewBrehmer - 15 Sep 2010 |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
Interruption Lab StudyAbstractRelated WorkHypothesesExperimental DesignParticipantsTasksProcedureMaterialsDesign / FactorsDependent Measures-- MatthewBrehmer - 15 Sep 2010 |