Comparing Synchronous and Asynchronous Task Delivery in Mixed Reality Environments
Pages 2776 - 2784
Abstract
Asynchronous digital communication is a widely applied and well-known form of information exchange. Most pieces of technology make use of some variation of asynchronous communication systems, be it messaging or email applications. This allows recipients to process digital messages immediately (synchronous) or whenever they have time (asynchronous), meaning that purely digital interruptions can be mitigated easily. Mixed Reality systems have the potential to not only handle digital interruptions but also interruptions in physical space, e.g., caused by co-workers in workspaces or learning environments. However, the benefits of such systems previously remained untested in the context of Mixed Reality. We conducted a user study ($\mathrm{N}=26$) to investigate the impact that the timing of task delivery has on the participants' performance, workflow, and emotional state. Participants had to perform several cognitively demanding tasks in a Mixed Reality workspace. Inside the virtual workspace, we simulated in-person task delivery either during tasks (i.e., interrupting the participant) or between tasks (i.e., delaying the interruption). Our results show that delaying interruptions has a significant impact on subjective metrics like the perceived performance and workload.
References
[1]
R. F. Adler and R. Benbunan-Fich. Self-interruptions in discretionary multitasking. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4): pp. 1441–1449, 2013. 2.
[2]
E. M. Altmann, J. G. Trafton, and D. Z. Hambrick. Momentary interruptions can derail the train of thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1): pp. 215, 2014. 2, 7.
[3]
Apple. Vision pro. [Online]. Available: https://www.apple.com/apple-vision-pro/. 2023. (Accessed: December 28, 2023). 1.
[4]
B. Bailey, J. Carlis, and J. Konstan. The effects of interruptions on task performance, annoyance, and anxiety in the user interface. Workingpaper, 2004. 2, 7.
[5]
B. Bailey, J. Konstan, and J. Carlis. Measuring the effects of interruptions on task performance in the user interface. In Smc 2000 conference proceedings. 2000 ieee international conference on systems, man and cybernetics. ‘cybernetics evolving to systems, humans, organizations, and their complex interactions’ (cat. no. 0, vol. 2, pp. 757–762 vol. 2, 2000. 2, 7.
[6]
J. E. Bardram and T. R. Hansen. Context-based workplace awareness. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 19(2): pp. 105–138, 2010. 1.
[7]
M. Billinghurst, I. Poupyrev, H. Kato, and R. May. Mixing realities in shared space: An augmented reality interface for collaborative computing. In 2000 IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo. ICME2000. Proceedings. Latest advances in the fast changing world of multimedia (Cat. No. 00TH8532), vol. 3, pp. 1641–1644. IEEE, 2000. 2.
[8]
E. J. Blumberg, C. K. Foroughi, M. R. Scheldrup, M. S. Peterson, D. A. Boehm-Davis, and R. Parasuraman. Reducing the disruptive effects of interruptions with noninvasive brain stimulation. Human Factors, 57(6): pp. 1051–1062, 2015. 26342062. 2.
[9]
A. Chen and E. Karahanna. Boundaryless technology: Understanding the effects of technology-mediated interruptions across the boundaries between work and personal life. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(2): pp. 16–36, 2014. 2.
[10]
A. Chen and E. Karahanna. Life interrupted: The effects of technology-mediated work interruptions on work and nonwork outcomes. MIS Q., 42(4): pp. 1023–1042, dec 2018. 2.
[11]
E. Cutrell, M. Czerwinski, and E. Horvitz. Notification, disruption, and memory: Effects of messaging interruptions on memory and performance. p. 263, 2001. 2, 7.
[12]
M. Czerwinski, S. Chrisman, and B. Schumacher. Interactive posters: The effects of warnings and display similarity on interruption in multitasking environments. SIGCHI Bull., 23(4): pp. 38–39, oct 1991. 2.
[13]
M. Czerwinski, E. Cutrell, and E. Horvitz. Instant messaging and interruption: Influence of task type on performance. In OZCHI 2000 conference proceedings, vol. 356, pp. 361–367, 2000. 2.
[14]
M. Czerwinski, E. Cutrell, and E. Horvitz. Instant messaging: Effects of relevance and timing. In People and computers XIV: Proceedings of HCI, vol. 2, pp. 71–76, 2000. 2.
[15]
M. Danninger, R. Vertegaal, D. P. Siewiorek, and A. Mamuji. Using social geometry to manage interruptions and co-worker attention in office environments. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2005, GI '05, p. 211–218. Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society, Waterloo, CAN, 2005. 1.
[16]
C. Dubosc, G. Gorisse, O. Christmann, S. Fleury, K. Poinsot, and S. Richir. Impact of avatar facial anthropomorphism on body ownership, attractiveness and social presence in collaborative tasks in immersive virtual environments. Computers & Graphics, 101: pp. 82–92, 2021. 7.
[17]
E. Dzardanova, V. Kasapakis, D. Gavalas, and S. Sylaiou. Virtual Reality as a Communication Medium: A Comparative Study of Forced Compliance in Virtual Reality versus Physical World. Virtual Real., 26(2): pp. 737–757, June 2022. 2.
[18]
B. Ens, J. Lanir, A. Tang, S. Bateman, G. Lee, T. Piumsomboon, and M. Billinghurst. Revisiting collaboration through mixed reality: The evolution of groupware. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 131: pp. 81–98, 2019.
50 years of the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. Reflections on the past, present and future of human-centred technologies. 2.
[19]
H. Eyrolle and J.-M. Cellier. The effects of interruptions in work activity: Field and laboratory results. Applied ergonomics, 31(5): pp. 537–543, 2000. 2, 7.
[20]
J. E. Federman. Interruptions in online training and their effects on learning. European Journal of Training and Development, 43(5/6): pp. 490–504, 2019. 2.
[21]
A. Fender and J. Müller. Velt: A framework for multi rgb-d camera systems. in ISS' 18, p. 73–83. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2018. 4.
[22]
A. R. Fender and C. Holz. Causality-preserving asynchronous reality. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '22. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2022. 1, 3, 7.
[23]
J. E. Fischer, N. Yee, V. Bellotti, N. Good, S. Benford, and C. Greenhalgh. Effects of content and time of delivery on receptivity to mobile interruptions. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, MobileHCI'10, p. 103–112. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2010. 2.
[24]
N. Fitz, K. Kushlev, R. Jagannathan, T. Lewis, D. Paliwal, and D. Ariely. Batching smartphone notifications can improve well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 101: pp. 84–94, 2019. 2, 7.
[25]
C. George, P. Janssen, D. Heuss, and F. Alt. Should i interrupt or not? understanding interruptions in head-mounted display settings. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference, DIS' 19, p. 497–510. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2019. 2, 3.
[26]
C. George, J. Schwuchow, and H. Hussmann. Fearing disengagement from the real world. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, VRST '19. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2019. 3.
[27]
T. Gillie and D. E. Broadbent. What makes interruptions disruptive? a study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychological Research, 50: pp. 243–250, 1989. 1.
[28]
D. Gopher, Y. Greenshpan, and L. Armony. Switching attention between tasks: Exploration of the components of executive control and their development with training. in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 40(21): pp. 1060–1064, 1996. 2.
[29]
J. Gugenheimer, E. Stemasov, J. Frommel, and E. Rukzio. Sharevr: Enabling co-located experiences for virtual reality between hmd and non-hmd users. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI' 17, p. 4021–4033. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2017. 2.
[30]
S. G. Hart. Nasa task load index (tlx). 1986. [Online]. Available: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20000021487. 5.
[31]
J. Hartmann, C. Holz, E. Ofek, and A. D. Wilson. Realitycheck: Blending virtual environments with situated physical reality. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI'19, p. 1–12. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2019. 2.
[32]
S. M. Hess and M. C. Detweiler. Training to reduce the disruptive effects of interruptions. in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 38(18): pp. 1173–1177, 1994. 2.
[33]
E. Horvitz and J. Apacible. Learning and reasoning about interruption. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, ICMI '03, p. 20–27. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2003. 2.
[34]
E. J. Horvitz, A. Jacobs, and D. Hovel. Attention-sensitive alerting. arXiv preprint arXiv:, 2013. 2.
[35]
F. Jambon. Formal modelling of task interruptions. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '96, p. 45–46. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1996. 2.
[36]
P. Knierim, T. Kosch, G. LaBorwit, and A. Schmidt. Altering the speed of reality? exploring visual slow-motion to amplify human perception using augmented reality. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference, AHs '20. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2020. 3.
[37]
K. Kushlev, J. Proulx, and E. W. Dunn. “silence your phones”: Smartphone notifications increase inattention and hyperactivity symptoms. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI' 16, p. 1011–1020. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2016. 2.
[38]
K. Lilija, H. Pohl, and K. Hornbæk. Who put that there? temporal navigation of spatial recordings by direct manipulation. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '20, p. 1–11. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2020. 3.
[39]
C. Linde and J. Goguen. Checklist interruption and resumption: A linguistic study. Technical report, 1987. 2.
[40]
D. Lindlbauer and A. D. Wilson. Remixed reality: Manipulating space and time in augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI' 18, p. 1–13. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2018. 1.
[41]
M. Lopez-Rosenfeld, C. I. Calero, D. Fernandez Slezak, G. Garbulsky, M. Bergman, M. Trevisan, and M. Sigman. Neglect in human communication: Quantifying the cost of cell-phone interruptions in face to face dialogs. PLOS ONE, 10(6): pp. 1–9, 06 2015. 2.
[42]
G. Mandler and D. L. Watson. Anxiety and the interruption of behavior. Anxiety and behavior, 1: pp. 263–288, 1966. 2.
[43]
G. Mansi and Y. Levy. Do instant messaging interruptions help or hinder knowledge workers' task performance? International Journal of Information Management, 33(3): pp. 591–596, 2013. 011 1.
[44]
G. Mark, D. Gudith, and U. Klocke. The cost of interrupted work: More speed and stress. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '08, p. 107–110. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2008. 2, 7.
[45]
M. McGill, D. Boland, R. Murray-Smith, and S. Brewster. A dose of reality: Overcoming usability challenges in vr head-mounted displays. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2143–2152, 2015. 2.
[46]
Meta. Meta quest 2. [Online]. Available: https://www.meta.com/de/en/quest/products/quest-2/, 2023. (Accessed: December 28, 2023). 1, 3.
[47]
Microsoft. Azure kinect. [Online]. Available: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/kinect-dk, 2023. (Accessed: December 28, 2023). 3.
[48]
S. O. Minassian, M. J. Muller, and D. Gruen. Diverse strategies for interruption management in complex office activities. 2004. 2.
[49]
Y. Miyata and D. A. Norman. Psychological issues in support of multiple activities. User centered system design: New perspectives on human-computer interaction, pp. 265–284, 1986. 2.
[50]
C. A. Monk, D. A. Boehm-Davis, G. Mason, and J. G. Trafton. Recovering from interruptions: Implications for driver distraction research. in Human Factors, 46(4): pp. 650–663, 2004. 15709327. 2, 7.
[51]
NASA. Nasa task load index. [Online]. Available: https://humansystems.arc.nasa.gov/groups/tlx/downloads/TLXScale.pdf. (Accessed: December 28, 2023). 5.
[52]
B. O'Conaill and D. Frohlich. Timespace in the workplace: Dealing with interruptions. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '95, p. 262–263. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1995. 1, 2.
[53]
J. O'Hagan, J. R. Williamson, M. Khamis, and M. McGill. Exploring manipulating in-vr audio to facilitate verbal interactions between vr users and bystanders. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, pp. 1–9, 2022. 2.
[54]
J. O'Hagan, J. R. Williamson, F. Mathis, M. Khamis, and M. McGill. Re-evaluating vr user awareness needs during bystander interactions. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–17, 2023. 2.
[55]
S. Orts-Escolano, C. Rhemann, S. Fanello, W. Chang, A. Kowdle, Y. Degtyarev, D. Kim, P. L. Davidson, S. Khamis, M. Dou, V. Tankovich, C. Loop, Q. Cai, P. A. Chou, S. Mennicken, J. Valentin, V. Pradeep, S. Wang, S. B. Kang, P. Kohli, Y. Lutchyn, C. Keskin, and S. Izadi. Holoportation: Virtual 3d teleportation in real-time. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST'16, p. 741–754. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2016. 2.
[56]
V. Penichet, I. Marin, J. Gallud, M. Lozano, and R. Tesoriero. A classification method for cscw systems. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 168: pp. 237–247, 2007. in Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Views on Designing Complex Architectures (VODCA 2006). 2.
[57]
T. Piumsomboon, Y. Lee, G. Lee, and M. Billinghurst. Covar: A collaborative virtual and augmented reality system for remote collaboration. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2017 Emerging Technologies, SA' 17. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2017. 2.
[58]
R. M. Ratwani, J. G. Trafton, and C. Myers. Helpful or harmful? examining the effects of interruptions on task performance. in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(3): pp. 372–375, 2006. 2.
[59]
J. S. Roo and M. Hachet. One reality: Augmenting how the physical world is experienced by combining multiple mixed reality modalities. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST '17, p. 787–795. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2017. 2.
[60]
D. D. Salvucci and P. Bogunovich. Multitasking and monotasking: The effects of mental workload on deferred task interruptions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '10, p. 85–88. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2010. 2.
[61]
F. Sasangohar, B. Donmez, A. C. Easty, and P. L. Trbovich. Effects of nested interruptions on task resumption: A laboratory study with intensive care nurses. Human Factors, 59(4): pp. 628–639, 2017. 28128985. 2.
[62]
E. R. Sykes. Interruptions in the workplace: A case study to reduce their effects. International Journal of Information Management, 31(4): pp. 385–394, 2011. 2.
[63]
U. Technologies. Unity3d engine 2020.3.14. [Online]. Available: https://unity.com/releases/editor/whats-new/2020.3.14, 2023. (Accessed: December 28, 2023). 4.
[64]
A. Tinwell, M. Grimshaw, and D. Abdel-Nabi. The uncanny valley and nonverbal communication in virtual characters. Nonverbal Communication in Virtual Worlds, pp. 325–341, 2014. 7.
[65]
R. van Solingen, E. Berghout, and F. van Latum. Interrupts: just a minute never is. IEEE Software, 15(5): pp. 97–103, 1998. 1.
[66]
A. D. Wilson. Fast lossless depth image compression. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces, ISS' 17, p. 100–105. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2017. 4.
Recommendations
Mixed Reality Humans: Evaluating Behavior, Usability, and Acceptability
This paper presents Mixed Reality Humans (MRHs), a new type of embodied agent enabling touch-driven communication. Affording touch between human and agent allows MRHs to simulate interpersonal scenarios in which touch is crucial. Two studies provide ...
Asynchronous Manual Work in Mixed Reality Remote Collaboration
Extended RealityAbstractResearch in Collaborative Virtual Environments (CVEs) is becoming more and more significant with increasing accessibility of Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) technology, additionally reinforced by the increasing demand for remote ...
Extending Virtual Reality Display Wall Environments Using Augmented Reality
SUI '19: Symposium on Spatial User InteractionTwo major form factors for virtual reality are head-mounted displays and large display environments such as CAVE®and the LCD-based successor CAVE2®. Each of these has distinct advantages and limitations based on how they’re used. This work explores ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
1077-2626 © 2024 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Publisher
IEEE Educational Activities Department
United States
Publication History
Published: 04 March 2024
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 04 Jan 2025