| |
| META TOPICPARENT |
name="C-TOC" |
Interruption Lab Study |
| |
Experiment |
|
<
< | 3 (age, BS) x 3 (interruption demand, WS) mixed-factor ANOVA design. |
| |
- 3 levels of age (young vs. young-old vs. old-old, BS)
- 3 levels of interruption complexity (no interruption vs. low-demand vs. high-demand, ordering counterbalanced WS)
|
|
<
< | |
| |
- 2 main tasks: (verbal: Sentence Comprehension Task (SC) vs. non-verbal: Square Puzzles (SqP), ordering counterbalanced WS)
|
|
>
> | |
| |
- 8 trials in SqP, 10 trials in SC, 3 banks of isomorphic trials, which increase in difficulty;
- difficulty is gauged by number of actions required and complexity of instruction for SC puzzles, gauged by number of lines moved for SqP puzzles;
|
|
<
< |
-
- ordering of 3 task banks randomly assigned; subsets of trials in which interruptions occur are semi-randomly generated, with the constraint that interruptions are spread across medium and hard trials;
- no interruptions occur on easy trials (1st trial in each bank);
|
>
> |
-
- ordering of 3 task banks randomly assigned; subsets of trials in which interruptions occur are semi-randomly generated, with the constraint that interruptions are spread across medium and hard trials; no interruptions occur on easy trials (1st trial in each bank);
- our dependent measures are speed and accuracy scores from the subset of interruption trials for each participant; dependent measures from other trials are not considered in this analysis
|
| |
- 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;
|
|
<
< | Other potential factors (not addressed)
- interruption type/modality (considered in addition to similarity/complexity): computerised (to simulate email / IM alert, antivirus notification, software update, browser crash (total screen change)) vs. uncomputerised (to simulate a telephone call, a caller at the door, a conversation with someone in the room, an alarm ringing, an errand or chore) - the latter forcing one away from the screen
- pop-up interruptions requiring simple vs. complex response (to simply dismiss interrupting pop-ups (easy) vs. pop-ups requiring responses to urgent forced-choise questions (difficult)).
- dimension: verbal (spoken) vs. written vs. interactive interruption
- unsupported: 2-3 levels of interruption frequency (no interruption/control, infrequent interruption, frequent interruption) (not sure if frequent interruption will be an issue for 1/2 hour cognitive test)
- partially supported: 2-3 levels of interruption length (short, med, long), (no support for length from [Gillie 89])
- task instruction (emphasis on speed vs. emphasis on accuracy)
- length of interruption lag (currently fixed at 2s)
|
| | Dependent measures and potential covariates |
|
<
< |
- For each of the 2 main tasks, and for both normalized time and accuracy, we will run 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) mixed-factor ANOVA. |
| |
- local performance measures - only on subset of trials that are interrupted compared with control condition; remainder of uninterrupted trial scores discarded;
|
|
<
< |
-
- normalized trial completion time;
- normalized trial accuracy score, based on predefined scoring scheme;
|
>
> |
-
- trial completion time;
- trial accuracy score, based on predefined scoring scheme;
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. |
| |
- global performance measures, collapsed across all trials in a bank of trials
|
|
<
< |
-
- total completion time for each bank of trials;
- total accuracy score for each bank of trials;
|
>
> |
-
- total completion time for each bank of trials - normalized to compare total completion time between SC and SqP trial banks;
- total accuracy score for each bank of trials, score out of 100%;
Potential covariates, other recorded DVs: |
| |
- other recorded measures
- # moves, # adjustments, # clicks, # aborted moves, # invalid moves, SC instruction read time (SC only), first-action time, interruption dismissal time, resumption lag time (time to first completed action after interruption),interaction interval before interruption, interaction interval after interruption, total interaction time;
- for high-demand n-back interruptions: # correct, # incorrect, # false positives, # false negatives, # true positives, # true negatives;
- NASA-TLX workload assessment survey scores, administered after each bank of trials (fatigue, cognitive demand, physical demand, annoyance)
|
|
<
< |
- MoCA test score
- language test score
|
>
> |
- MoCA test score - participant is excluded if scores less than 26
- English language test score - using the NAART (North American Adult Reading Test, [Uttl 02]); participant is excluded if less than 50% of words on page 1 are pronounced incorrectly;
|
| |
Notes:
- CJ: timing: advise against using instructions in time to complete - tests reading comprehension rather than task at hand (i.e. pattern construction) opportunity to separate criteria: item completion and task completion (including items, transitions, breaks in between, etc.)
|
|
>
> | Other potential factors (not addressed)
- interruption type/modality (considered in addition to similarity/complexity): computerised (to simulate email / IM alert, antivirus notification, software update, browser crash (total screen change)) vs. uncomputerised (to simulate a telephone call, a caller at the door, a conversation with someone in the room, an alarm ringing, an errand or chore) - the latter forcing one away from the screen
- pop-up interruptions requiring simple vs. complex response (to simply dismiss interrupting pop-ups (easy) vs. pop-ups requiring responses to urgent forced-choise questions (difficult)).
- dimension: verbal (spoken) vs. written vs. interactive interruption
- unsupported: 2-3 levels of interruption frequency (no interruption/control, infrequent interruption, frequent interruption) (not sure if frequent interruption will be an issue for 1/2 hour cognitive test)
- partially supported: 2-3 levels of interruption length (short, med, long), (no support for length from [Gillie 89])
- task instruction (emphasis on speed vs. emphasis on accuracy)
- length of interruption lag (currently fixed at 2s)
Participants
- 3 age groups (19-55),(56-69),(70+) - rationale for 2-3 groups from [Moffatt 10], CJ
- CJ: young-old vs. old-old : age dif @ 70 in literature / 65 for AD/MCI research
|
| | Tasks
2 adapted and programmed C-TOC cognitive tests (one verbal, one nonverbal); |
| | Procedure
- Review and Sign Consent form
|
|
<
< |
- Administer MoCA and language test
|
>
> |
- Administer MoCA and NAART tests
|
| |
- Demonstrate interruption practice tasks
- experimental tasks A & B, counterbalanced between task types, 3 banks of each counterbalanced on interruption demand
- NASA-TLX questionnaire administered between each bank
|
| |
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
- 3 age groups (19-55),(56-69),(70+) - rationale for 2-3 groups from [Moffatt 10], CJ
- CJ: young-old vs. old-old : age dif @ 70 in literature / 65 for AD/MCI research
|
| | Hypotheses
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; |
Copyright © 2008-2025 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.