Abstract
Interruptions from technology—such as alerts from mobile communication devices—are a pervasive aspect of modern life. Interruptions can be detrimental to performance of the ongoing, interrupted task. Designers often can choose whether interruptions are delivered as visual or auditory alerts. Contradictory theories have emerged regarding whether auditory or visual alerts are more harmful to performance of ongoing visual tasks. Multiple Resources Theory predicts better overall performance with auditory alerts, but Auditory Preemption Theory predicts better overall performance with visual alerts. Nees and Sampsell previously found that multitasking was superior with nonspeech auditory alerts as compared to visual alerts. In the current experiment, their methods were replicated and extended to include a speech auditory alerts condition. Performance of the ongoing tracking task was worse with interruption from visual alerts, and perceived workload also was highest in this condition. Reaction time to alerts was fastest with visual alerts. There also was converging evidence to suggest that performance with speech alerts was superior to performance with nonspeech tonal alerts. The current experiment replicated the results of Nees and Sampsell and extended their findings to speech alert sounds. Like in their study, the pattern of findings here support Multiple Resources Theory over Auditory Preemption Theory.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
