(r15) InterruptionStudy < Main

Tags: view all tags
---+ Interruption Lab Study

%TOC%

---++ Abstract

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

See ongoing notes added to the [[C-TOC Literature Review][literature review]] page.

---+++ Experiment

3 (age, BS) x 3 (interruption type, WS) x 2 (main task, WS) mixed 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 types of task (verbal (SC) vs. non-verbal (!SqP), ordering counterbalanced WS)

   *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)

   * interruption type (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

---++++ Dependent measures

   * performance measures per trial: 
      * # 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;
      * %BLUE% 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.) %ENDCOLOR%
      * incentive to block at random point during task (not just during item completion); post-hoc blocking on when interruption occurred
   * psycho-physiological state: mental effort/expenditure, affect, well-being, activity, mood, anxiety, fatigue (self-reports, experimenter observations)

---+++ Tasks

2 adapted and programmed C-TOC cognitive tests (one verbal, one nonverbal); 

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;
   * interrupting listing task used in [Farrimond 06] - one which would conflict with verbal memory), (puzzle task - sorting or arranging for nonverbal interruption)
   * [Storch 92] shows on-screen interruptions more disruptive than phone/visitor interruptions with data entry tasks on GUI and CUI interfaces (GUI facilitating simultaneous execution of main task during interruption);
      * phone interruption shows no difference from control group; screen interruption (similar modality) shows worst disruption, then walk-in interruption
      * a simulated office - door, phone, desk, computer, etc.
      * GUI allows users to work simultaneously on main task during an interruption 
   * [Speier 03] - did not vary simplicity/complexity of interrupting tasks, but main tasks, varied interruption condition BS; all interruptions were data acquisition tasks that could be carried out regardless of the interface/task complexity of the main task;
      * models of interruptions identified; did not control social characteristics of interruption - will this factor be worse for older adults?

---+++ Materials

   * 2 adapted C-TOC tests; verbal: sentence comprehension (SC); non-verbal: square puzzles (!SqP) 

---+++ Procedure

   * questionnaire about background: health, vision, fatigue, computer use
   * practice tasks
   * experimental tasks, counterbalanced for interruption style and task type
   * questionnaire about psycho-physiological state
   * screening NSP pencil+paper tests for NSP validity and post-experiment screening

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.

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
- 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
- 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

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. 

---+++ Participants

   * 3 age groups (19-55),(56-69),(70+) - rationale for 2-3 groups from [Moffatt 10], CJ 
      * %BLUE% CJ: young-old vs. old-old : age dif @ 70 in literature / 65 for AD/MCI research %ENDCOLOR%

---+++ 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; 

   * H1: Age interaction effects for speed and accuracy; Older adults performing proportionally worse on interruption conditions

   * H2: High-demand interruptions will incur worse performance than low-demand interruptions; Possible age interaction or age-related compensation (attention enhancement and suppression) low-demand interruptions may cause mind to wander, become distracted with internal thoughts; high-demand interrupting tasks to main task will have a greater negative effect (in terms of TWT, TOT, TOI, and error rate) than low-demand interrupting tasks. 
      * following from [Gillie 89], interruptions that are similar in nature to the main task being performed will have a greater negative effect (again in terms of TWT, TOT, TOI, and error rate) than dissimilar interruptions. Once again a greater effect can be expected for older adults. 
      * From [Storch 92], interruptions using a similar modality (on screen vs. on the phone or in person) will have a greater detrimental effect on users. 
      * From [Speier 03], interruptions differ from distractions in that they exist in the same modality as the main task, leading to an overloading of cues. Distractions during complex tasks can still be detrimental to performance do to an overall cognitive overload. 

   * H3: Performance detriments greater for verbal task (SC) than non-verbal task (SqP); Age interaction possible; following from [Speier 03], detriments to performance following interruptions will be more severe for verbal tasks (SC) than non-verbal tasks (!SqP). An interaction would exist in that older adults performance on verbal tasks following interruptions are proportionally worse than younger adults performance, compared to the performance of both groups on non-verbal tasks.

   * H4: Self-reports regarding disruptive effects of interruptions to reinforce H1-H3


---++++ Former Hypotheses

   * fH1: performance measures (speed): disruptions caused by interruptions will lead to greater total working time (TWT) for older adults than younger adults on time-intensive tasks. A similar difference should be found in increases in time on task (TOT). Time on interruption (TOI) differences should also be expected, as time to re-orient to and from the main task (change-over and resumption) are expected to be greater for older adults. Older adults will commit more errors and omissions than younger adults on the main task, both groups are expected commit more errors/omissions upon task resumption compared to prior to the interruption, however a greater effect is expected for older adults.
 
   * fH2: performance measures (accuracy): disruptions caused by interruptions will lead to a decrease in TWT and TOT for younger adults (following from [Zijlstra 99]), and an increase in TWT and TOT for older adults. Similar differences in TOI and change-over/resumption times are to be expected as in H1. (Zeigarnik effect)

---++++ Implications of hypotheses

   * types of prompts (how much info is too much info for C-TOC - worry about too much aid)
      * [Parnin CHI 10] - relevant prompts (developer user)
         * snapshots / instant replay of past actions
         * task sketches - annotations of a task breakdown: steps, objectives, plans + goals (short animated clip or series of images)
         * prospective cues - contextual reminders that are displayed when a condition is true;
         * change summary - natural language summary of past actions in log format
      * simple contextual cue of recent action: visual highlighting of last object moved/clicked (glow), display origin distinguished from current location of recently moved object
      * repeat of selected instructions and speed/accuracy tradeoff - to avoid overcompensation on speed at expense of accuracy 
      * do older adults compensate to overcome deficiencies in attention suppression and enhancement; does interruption recovery lead to increased fatigue for older adults?
      * use of interruption lag [Altmann 04], [Hodgetts 06] - do older adults make use of contextual cues from the interruption lag and resumption lag to resume a task, or does automatic encoding of task goals occur less in older age? what are the implications for prompting systems?
      * from [Speier 03] spatial presentation formats able to mitigate effect of interruptions while symbolic formats were not for complex tasks;
         * use of icons and graphics rather than text-based resumption prompts
         * crossover point exists between perceptual and analytical processes - where is the crossover for older adults?
         * graphical resumption prompts will be more effective than verbal resumption prompts, regardless of the type of main task. A proportionally greater benefit will be seen for older adults than younger adults.
      * [Storch 92] - GUI better than CUI for concurrent execution of main task and interrupting task - likely not a factor with C-TOC   

---
Attachments
Topic attachments
I	Attachment	History	Action	Size	Date	Who	Comment
docx	BrainFreeze_expt_script.docx	r1	manage	18.9 K	2011-01-11 - 22:33	MatthewBrehmer	experiment script
pptx	IDRG-MUX-Jan12.pptx	r1	manage	1383.0 K	2011-01-11 - 19:48	MatthewBrehmer	MUX presentation Jan 12/11
xlsx	mb_experiment_ordering.xlsx	r1	manage	13.4 K	2011-01-07 - 02:24	MatthewBrehmer	sequences and participant ordering
Topic revision: r15 - 2011-01-11 - MatthewBrehmer
~~Edit~~
~~Attach~~