ArticlePsychological research2026
Opposite effects of interruption frequency on performance in interrupted and uninterrupted multistep task.
Article in Psychological research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated the effects of interruption frequency on interrupted and uninterrupted performance in a serial multistep task. The multistep task consisted of five steps, which were memorized and executed consecutively in predefined order. This task was occasionally interrupted by a letter classification task. After completion of that interruption task, participants needed to resume the multistep task at the correct step. We measured response times and sequence errors (deviations from the prescribed order of steps) at the step after an interruption (resumption performance) and in the corresponding steps of uninterrupted tasks. Interruption frequency varied between subjects and was manipulated twofold as: (1) the percentage of interrupted tasks at all (global frequency: 25% vs. 75%); (2) the number of interruptions per task (local frequency: one or three interruptions), resulting in four different groups. The results revealed faster and more accurate resumption in both 75%-frequency groups compared to the lowest frequency group. However, participants in the highest-frequency group were slower in uninterrupted tasks compared to all other lower frequency groups. These results show that high interruption frequency in multistep tasks induces strategic shifts in participants’ control mode causing better performance during interrupted tasks at the cost of worse performance in uninterrupted tasks.
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.