Restoration of Attention by Rest in a Multitasking World: Theory, Methodology, and Empirical Evidence

Abstract

In this work, we evaluate the status of both theory and empirical evidence in the field of experimental rest-break research based on a framework that combines mental-chronometry and psychometric-measurement theory. To this end, we (1) provide a taxonomy of rest breaks according to which empirical studies can be classified (e.g., by differentiating between long, short, and micro-rest breaks based on context and temporal properties). Then, we (2) evaluate the theorizing in both the basic and applied fields of research and explain how popular concepts (e.g., ego depletion model, opportunity cost theory, attention restoration theory, action readiness, etc.) relate to each other in contemporary theoretical debates. Here, we highlight differences between all these models in the light of two symbolic categories, termed the resource-based and satiation-based model, including aspects related to the dynamics and the control (strategic or non-strategic) mechanisms at work. Based on a critical assessment of existing methodological and theoretical approaches, we finally (3) provide a set of guidelines for both theory building and future empirical approaches to the experimental study of rest breaks. We conclude that a psychometrically advanced and theoretically focused research of rest and recovery has the potential to finally provide a sound scientific basis to eventually mitigate the adverse effects of ever increasing task demands on performance and well-being in a multitasking world at work and leisure.

On doing multi-act arithmetic: A multitrait-multimethod approach of performance dimensions in integrated multitasking

“…On the side of measurement theory, the reliability of a test is determined by the amount of true score variance relative to error variance, and this ratio increases with number of trials. On the side of design theory, the amount of processing time should be maximal relative to testing time ( Schumann et al, 2022 , pp. 14–15).…”

“…The study of multitasking is both multifarious and multitudinous given the multiple definitions and paradigms proposed in the literature. Depending on the particular objective, research can be classified into three categories, one concerned with the cognitive analysis of tasks ( Pashler, 1994a , b ; Meyer and Kieras, 1997a , b ; Hommel, 1998a , b ; Salvucci and Taatgen, 2008 , 2011 ), another with the “human” factor at work and leisure ( Wickens, 2008 ; Parasuraman and Manzey, 2010 ; Schumann et al, 2022 ) as well as in competitive sports activities (e.g., Kunde et al, 2011 ; Wehrman and Sowman, 2019 , 2021 ; Pedraza-Ramirez et al, 2020 ; Polzien et al, 2022 ), and the third one with the utility of cognitive operations for psychometric test construction ( Miller and Ulrich, 2003 , 2013 ; Steinborn et al, 2016 , 2018 ). By definition, multitasking can be conceived of as a special form of performance behavior that requires more than one mental act at a time or in close succession with the unit of observation being either a manifest or latent variable.…”

“…For example, in a dual-response paradigm ( Huestegge and Koch, 2013 ; Raettig and Huestegge, 2021 ), the performance registration is directly observable, while in a multi-act (chained) arithmetic paradigm, the units of interest lay hidden and can only indirectly be inferred ( Pieters, 1983 , 1985 ). Since even the simplest decision imposes a considerable demand requiring multiple inhibitory control of alternative response options ( Moeller and Frings, 2019 ; Raettig and Huestegge, 2021 ), it is utterly impossible to reach a definition of multitasking that is minimalistic and universal at the same time ( Ackerman, 1987 ; Logan, 2002 , 2004 ; Altmann and Gray, 2008 ; Kiesel et al, 2010 ; Paas Oliveros et al, 2022 ; Schumann et al, 2022 ).…”

“… Blankenberger, 2001 ), and with a problem size ranging from 4 to 19. Both the large number of items (set-size effect) and the diversification of item difficulty ( “peek-a-boo” uncertainty effect) are effective means to preventing mindless (rhythmic) responding ( Lupker et al, 1997 ; Schmidt et al, 2016 ; Braem et al, 2019 ; Schumann et al, 2022 ), similar to the shuffling of preparatory intervals ( Grosjean et al, 2001 ; Steinborn et al, 2009 , 2010b ; Langner et al, 2010 , 2011 , 2018 ; Wehrman and Sowman, 2019 , 2021 ). In a session, each item was presented four times, amounting to a total of 592 randomly presented trials, requiring no longer than 30 min of testing.…”

“…A study of Bruning et al (2021) performed an in-depth analysis of individual differences and found a great diversity of how a task is represented by individuals and how this determines response organization (cf. Phillips and Rabbitt, 1995 ; Watson and Strayer, 2010 ; Cheyne et al, 2011 ; Steinborn et al, 2012 ; Schumann et al, 2022 ).…”