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.
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=22422
Click to purchase paper as a non-member or login as an AES member. If your company or school subscribes to the E-Library then switch to the institutional version. If you are not an AES member and would like to subscribe to the E-Library then Join the AES!
This paper costs $33 for non-members and is free for AES members and E-Library subscribers.
Learn more about the AES E-Library
Start a discussion about this paper!
