Previous research has suggested that providing informative cues about interrupting stimuli aids management of multiple tasks. However, auditory and visual cues can be ineffective in certain situations. The objective of the present study was to explore whether attention-directing tactile cues aid or interfere with performance. A two-group posttest-only randomized experiment was conducted. Sixty-one participants completed a 30-min performance session consisting of aircraft-monitoring and gauge-reading computer tasks. Tactile signals were administered to a treatment group to indicate the arrival and location of interrupting tasks. Control participants had to remember to visually check for the interrupting tasks. Participants in the treatment group responded to more interrupting tasks and responded faster than did control participants. Groups did not differ on error rates for the interrupting tasks, performance of the primary task, or subjective workload perceptions. In the context of the tasks used in the present research, tactile cues allowed participants to effectively direct attention where needed without disrupting ongoing information processing. Tactile cues should be explored in a variety of other visual, interruptladen environments. Potential applications exist for aviation, user-interface design, vigilance tasks, and team environments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Akamatsu, M., MacKenzie, I. S., & Hasbroucq, T. (1995). A comparison of tactile, auditory, and visual feedback in a pointing task using a mouse-type device. Ergonomics, 38, 816–827.
2.
Cellier, J.-M., & Eyrolle, H. (1992). Interference between switched tasks. Ergonomics, 35, 25–36.
3.
Cholewiak, R. W., Brill, J. C., & Schwab, A. (2004). Vibrotactile localization on the abdomen: Effects of place and space. Perception and Psychophysics, 66, 970–987.
4.
Cholewiak, R. W., & Collins, A. A. (2000). The generation of vibrotactile patterns on a linear array: Influences of body site, time, and presentation mode. Perception and Psychophysics, 62, 1220–1235.
5.
Cholewiak, R. W., & Collins, A. A. (2003). Vibrotactile localization on the arm: Effects of place, space, and age. Perception and Psychophysics, 65, 1058–1077.
6.
Damos, D. L. (1984). Individual differences in multiple-task performance and subjective estimates of workload. Perceptual and Motor Skill, 59, 567–580.
7.
Dornheim, M. A. (2000, July 17). Crew distractions emerge as new safety focus. Aviation Week and Space Technology, pp. 58–60.
8.
Edworthy, J., Stanton, N., & Hellier, E. (1995). Warnings in research and practice [Editorial]. Ergonomics, 38, 2145–2154.
9.
Fisher, C. D. (1998). Effects of external and internal interruptions on boredom at work: Two studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 503–522.
10.
Gilliland, K., & Schlegel, R. E. (1994). Tactile stimulation of the human head for information display. Human Factors, 36, 700–717.
11.
Gopher, D. (1993). The skill of attention control: Acquisition and execution of attention strategies. In D. E. Meyer, & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 299–322). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
Griffon-Fouco, M., & Ghertman, F. (1984). Recueil de données sur les facteurs humains à Electricité de France [Collection of data on the human factors with Electricity of France]. In Operational safety of nuclear power plants (pp. 157–172). Vienna, Austria: Vienna International Atomic Energy Agency.
13.
Ho, C.-Y., Nikolic, M. I., & Sarter, N. B. (2001). Multimodal information presentation in support of timesharing and effective interruption management. In Proceedings of the 20th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (pp. 5D2/1–5D2/8). Los Alamitos, CA: Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers.
14.
Ho, C.-Y., Waters, M. J., Nikolic, M. I., & Sarter, N. B. (2003, April). Supporting attention management in complex event-driven domains through informative interruptive cueing. Paper presented at the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, OH.
15.
Jett, Q. R., & George, J. M. (2003). Work interrupted: A closer look at the role of interruptions in organizational life [Note]. Academy of Management Review, 28, 494–507.
16.
Kirmeyer, S. L. (1988). Coping with competing demands: Interruptions and the Type A pattern. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 621–629.
17.
Kliegel, M., Martin, M., McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2002). Complex prospective memory and executive control of working memory: A process model. Psychologische Beitrage, 44, 303–318.
18.
Latorella, K. A. (1996). Investigating interruptions: Implications for flight deck performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.
19.
Mark, G. (2002). Extreme collaboration. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 89–93.
20.
McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, S127–S144.
21.
McFarlane, D. C. (2002). Comparison of four primary methods for coordinating the interruption of people in human-computer interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 17, 63–139.
22.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work.New York: Harper and Row.
23.
Moray, N. (1981). The role of attention in the detection of errors and the diagnosis of errors in man-machine systems. In J. Rasmussen, & W. Rouse (Eds.), Human detection and diagnosis of system failures (pp. 185–198). New York: Plenum.
24.
Moray, N. (1986). Monitoring behavior and supervisory control. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance (pp. 40.1–40.51). New York: Wiley.
25.
Perlow, L. (1999). The time famine: Toward a sociology of work time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 57–81.
26.
Rupert, A. H. (2000). An instrumentation solution for reducing spatial disorientation mishaps. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 19(2), 71–80.
27.
Sanders, A. F. (1983). Towards a model of stress and human performance. Acta Psychologica, 53, 61–97.
28.
Sarter, N. B. (2000). The need for multisensory interfaces in support of effective attention allocation in highly dynamic event-driven domains: The case of cockpit automation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10, 231–245.
29.
Sarter, N. B. (2001). Human technology interface: Multimodal communication in support of coordinative functions in human-machine teams. Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 5(2), 50–54.
30.
Sklar, A. E., & Sarter, N. B. (1999). Good vibrations: Tactile feed-back in support of attention allocation and human-automation coordination in event-driven domains. Human Factors, 41, 543–552.
31.
Smith, C. A. P., Johnston, J., & Paris, C. (2004). Decision support for air warfare: Detection of deceptive threats. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 129–148.
32.
Sorkin, R. D., Kantowitz, B. H., & Kantowitz, S. C. (1988). Likelihood alarm displays. Human Factors, 30, 445–459.
33.
Spector, A., & Biederman, I. (1976). Mental set and mental shift revisited. American Journal of Psychology, 89, 669–679.
34.
van Erp, J. B. F. (2001). Tactile navigation display. In S. Brewster & R. Murray-Smith (Eds.), Haptic human-computer interaction (pp. 165–173). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
35.
Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman, & R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–101). Orlando, FL: Academic.
36.
Wickens, C. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 3, 159–177.
37.
Wickens, C. D., & Liu, Y. (1988). Codes and modalities in multiple resources: A success and a qualification. Human Factors, 30, 599–616.
38.
Woods, D. D., Johannesen, L., Cook, R. I., & Sarter, N. (1994). Behind human error, cognitive systems, computers, and hindsight.Dayton, OH: Crew Systems Ergonomic Information and Analysis Center.
39.
Zlotnik, M. A. (1988). Applying electro-tactile display technology to fighter aircraft - Flying with feeling again. In Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference, NAECON 1988 (pp. 191–197). New York: IEEE Aerospace and Electronics Systems Society.
