ArticleMemory & cognition2024
Examining the cognitive processes underlying resumption costs in task-interruption contexts: Decay or inhibition of suspended task goals?
Article in Memory & cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interruption in visual search: a systematic review.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Pooled it
- Opposite effects of interruption frequency on performance in interrupted and uninterrupted multistep task.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Opportune moments for task interruptions: examining the cognitive mechanisms underlying interruption-timing effects.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To examine whether an ongoing primary task is inhibited when switching to an interruption task, we implemented the n - 2 backward inhibition paradigm into a task-interruption setting. In two experiments, subjects performed two primary tasks (block-wise manipulation) consisting of a predefined sequence of three subtasks. The primary tasks differed regarding whether the last subtask switched or repeated relative to the penultimate subtask, resulting in n - 1 switch subtasks (e.g., ABC) and n - 1 repetition subtasks (e.g., ACC) as the last subtask of the primary task. Occasionally, an interruption task was introduced before the last subtask of a primary task, changing the last subtask of the primary task from a n - 1 switch subtask to a n - 2 switch subtask (e.g., AB → secondary task → C) and from a n - 1 repetition subtask to a n - 2 repetition subtask (e.g., AC → secondary task → C). In two experiments with different degrees of response-set overlap between the interruption task and the subtasks of the primary task, we observed that switching back from the interruption task to the primary task resulted in n - 2 switch costs in the first subtask after the interruption (i.e., worse performance in n - 2 switch subtasks than in n - 2 repetition subtasks). This n - 2 switch cost was replicated in a third experiment in which we used a predefined sequence of four subtasks instead of three subtasks. Our finding of n - 2 switch costs suggest that the last subtask performed before the interruption remains activated when switching to the interruption task.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.