What Makes Us Resilient to Interruptions? Understanding the Role of Individual Differences in Resumption

Abstract

Interruptions are an inescapable reality in our lives and they sometimes lead to unfortunate consequences. Most of the interruptions literature focuses on aspects of the interruption task that makes them more or less disruptive to performance. However, it is important to consider what might make a person resilient to the deleterious effects of interruptions. This research seeks to explore the individual performer and the specific cognitive aspects that might make someone better or worse at dealing with an interruption. Based on the current theory, we predicted that participants with better working memory capacity and spatial abilities would be faster at resuming an interrupted task than those who scored lower on those measures. We found that those that scored higher on the working memory capacity measure were faster at resuming from an interruption and those that scored higher on one of the spatial ability measures (mental rotation) were faster at resuming. The paper folding task measure of spatial ability did not predict interrupted task performance.

Smartphones and Cognition: A Review of Research Exploring the Links between Mobile Technology Habits and Cognitive Functioning

“…Research indicates, for instance, that how closely an individual monitors and plans for interruptions, via executive control, mediates the relationship between multimedia interruptions and resultant stress (Tams et al, 2015), and that differences in working memory capacity (which is closely linked to executive functioning) is a predictor of the speed of task resumption following an interruption (Werner et al, 2011). …”

“…Interestingly, there is also some evidence suggesting that one’s susceptibility to cognitive disruption from mobile technology use, and the consequent impacts on academic success, might depend on the individual’s existing cognitive skill set; especially their ability to exert self-regulatory control over behavior. Research indicates, for instance, that how closely an individual monitors and plans for interruptions, via executive control, mediates the relationship between multimedia interruptions and resultant stress ( Tams et al, 2015 ), and that differences in working memory capacity (which is closely linked to executive functioning) is a predictor of the speed of task resumption following an interruption ( Werner et al, 2011 ).…”

Human Behavior with Mobile Health: Smartphone/ Devices, Apps and Cognition

“…19 Some of this may depend on the a person's cognitive skill set, ability to exert self-regulatory control over behavior, interruptions and resultant stress and working memory capacity as a predictor of the speed of task resumption following an interruption. 68 Other things like diet, exercise, sleep and mood may also indirectly affect measurement of these issues.…”

Reducing the Disruptive Effects of Interruptions With Noninvasive Brain Stimulation

“…Cades et al (2011) reported similar findings showing that participants were significantly slower to resume a task when completing an N-back interruption task with a 1-back load compared to a shadowing interruption task (equivalent to 0-back). Additionally, individual working memory capacity has been shown to be reliably associated with interrupted task performance (Meys & Sanderson, 2013;Werner et al, 2011). These lines of evidence highlight working memory as an important cognitive component that can influence the resumption process following an interruption.…”

“…We hypothesized that active stimulation of two target brain regions, the left and right DLPFC, would reduce resumption time in the interrupted task. There were three sources of evidence that provided the rationale for the choice of these sites: (a) the close link between working memory and DLPFC activation (D'Esposito et al, 1998;McCarthy et al, 1994), (b) the finding that tDCS applied over either the left or right DLPFC enhances working memory (Andrews et al, 2011;Berryhill & Jones, 2012;Ferrucci et al, 2008;Fregni et al, 2005;Javadi et al, 2012;Richmond et al, 2014), and (c) evidence pointing to close associations between working memory and interrupted task performance (Cades, 2007;Meys & Sanderson, 2013;Monk et al, 2008;Werner et al, 2011). In addition, in order to investigate the specificity of active stimulation with tDCS, we chose two control conditions: active stimulation of the left primary motor cortex, which enhances motor learning (Nitsche et al, 2003;Reis et al, 2009) but not working memory, and sham stimulation of the right DLPFC.…”