A comparison of human versus virtual interruptions

Area of Science:

• Human-Computer Interaction
• Cognitive Psychology
• Workplace Productivity

Background:

• Research extensively covers virtual interruptions, but human-initiated interruptions are prevalent in many work environments.
• Understanding the impact of different interruption types is crucial for optimizing task performance and workflow management.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the effects of human-initiated versus computer-initiated (virtual) interruptions on performance in a primary data-entry task.
• To investigate how the timing of interruptions influences task accuracy and error rates.

Main Methods:

• An experiment was conducted where participants performed a data-entry task.
• Participants encountered either human or virtual interruptions, with varying interruption onset times.
• Key metrics included interruption lag, number of correct responses, and error frequency.

Main Results:

• Human interruptions exhibited significantly shorter interruption lags compared to virtual interruptions.
• No significant differences in the number of correct responses were found between human and virtual interruptions.
• Interruptions occurring later in the task sequence led to a reduction in mistakes.

Conclusions:

• The social dynamics of human interruptions may contribute to shorter interruption lags.
• Virtual interruptions might offer greater temporal flexibility for individuals managing engagement with interruptions.
• Task timing plays a role in mitigating errors, irrespective of interruption type.