Speech, Nonspeech Audio, and Visual Interruptions of a Tracking Task: A Replication and Extension of Nees and Sampsell (2021)

IF 16.4 1区化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-05-03 DOI:10.17743/jaes.2022.0142

Michael A. Nees, Claire Liu, Krista Bogan

{"title":"Speech, Nonspeech Audio, and Visual Interruptions of a Tracking Task: A Replication and Extension of Nees and Sampsell (2021)","authors":"Michael A. Nees, Claire Liu, Krista Bogan","doi":"10.17743/jaes.2022.0142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17743/jaes.2022.0142","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

跟踪任务中的语音、非语音音频和视觉干扰：对 Nees 和 Sampsell（2021 年）的复制和扩展

技术带来的干扰，如移动通信设备发出的警报，是现代生活中无处不在的一个方面。中断可能不利于正在进行的、被中断的任务的执行。设计者通常可以选择以视觉或听觉提示的方式来中断任务。关于听觉提示还是视觉提示更不利于正在进行的视觉任务，出现了一些相互矛盾的理论。多重资源理论认为，听觉提示的总体效果更好，但听觉抢占理论认为，视觉提示的总体效果更好。Nees 和 Sampsell 以前曾发现，与视觉警报相比，非语音听觉警报的多任务处理效果更好。在本次实验中，他们的方法得到了复制和扩展，加入了语音听觉警报条件。在视觉警报中断的情况下，正在进行的跟踪任务的成绩较差，在这种情况下，感知到的工作量也最大。视觉警报的反应时间最快。还有越来越多的证据表明，语音警报的表现优于非语音音调警报的表现。本实验重复了 Nees 和 Sampsell 的研究结果，并将他们的研究结果扩展到语音警报声。与他们的研究一样，本实验的研究结果也支持 "多重资源理论 "而非 "听觉抢占理论"。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合

CiteScore

31.40

自引率

1.10%

发文量

312

审稿时长

2 months

期刊介绍： Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.