ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Predicting human interruptibility with sensors
Full text PdfPdf (2.60 MB)
Source ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) archive
Volume 12 ,  Issue 1  (March 2005) table of contents
Pages: 119 - 146  
Year of Publication: 2005
ISSN:1073-0516
Authors
James Fogarty  Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA
Scott E. Hudson  Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA
Christopher G. Atkeson  Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA
Daniel Avrahami  Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA
Jodi Forlizzi  Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA
Sara Kiesler  Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA
Johnny C. Lee  Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA
Jie Yang  Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 25,   Downloads (12 Months): 213,   Citation Count: 33
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   review   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1057237.1057243
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

A person seeking another person's attention is normally able to quickly assess how interruptible the other person currently is. Such assessments allow behavior that we consider natural, socially appropriate, or simply polite. This is in sharp contrast to current computer and communication systems, which are largely unaware of the social situations surrounding their usage and the impact that their actions have on these situations. If systems could model human interruptibility, they could use this information to negotiate interruptions at appropriate times, thus improving human computer interaction.This article presents a series of studies that quantitatively demonstrate that simple sensors can support the construction of models that estimate human interruptibility as well as people do. These models can be constructed without using complex sensors, such as vision-based techniques, and therefore their use in everyday office environments is both practical and affordable. Although currently based on a demographically limited sample, our results indicate a substantial opportunity for future research to validate these results over larger groups of office workers. Our results also motivate the development of systems that use these models to negotiate interruptions at socially appropriate times.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Barker, R. G. 1968. Ecological Psychology. Stanford University Press.
2
3
 
4
Bellotti, V. and Edwards, K. 2001. Intelligibility and accountability: Human considerations in context-aware systems. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 16, 2-4, 193--212.
 
5
 
6
CMU Sphinx: Open Source Speech Recognition. http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/sphinx/.
 
7
Cutrell, E., Czerwinski, M., and Horvitz, E. 2001. Notification, disruption, and memory: Effects of messaging interruptions on memory and performance. In Proceedings of the IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT 2001). 263--269.
 
8
Czerwinski, M., Cutrell, E., and Horvitz, E. 2000a. Instant messaging and interruptions: Influence of task type on performance. In Proceedings of the Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (OZCHI 2000). 356--361.
 
9
Czerwinski, M., Cutrell, E., and Horvitz, E. 2000b. Instant messaging: Effects of relevance and time. In Proceedings of the British HCI Group Annual Conference (HCI 2000). 71--76.
10
 
11
Duda, R. O. and Hart, P. E. 1973. Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis. John Wiley and Sons.
12
 
13
14
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
Goffmann, E. 1982. On Facework. Interaction Ritual, E. Goffmann, Ed. Random House, New York, 5--45.
 
19
 
20
Hatch, M. J. 1987. Physical barriers, task characteristics, and interaction activity in research and development firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 32, 387--399.
21
22
23
 
24
Horvitz, E., Breese, J., Heckerman, D., Hovel, D., and Rommelse, K. 1998. The lumiere project: Bayesian user modeling for inferring the goals and needs of software users. In Proceedings of the Conference on Uncertainty and Artificial Intelligence (UAI 1998). 256--265.
 
25
Horvitz, E., Jacobs, A., and Hovel, D. 1999. Attention-sensitive alerting. In Proceeding of the Conference on Uncertainty and Artificial Intelligence (UAI 1999). 305--313.
26
27
 
28
 
29
Langley, P. and Sage, S. 1994. Induction of selected Bayesian classifiers. In Proceedings of the Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 1994). 399--406.
 
30
Lu, L., Zhang, H., and Jiang, H. 2002. Content analysis for audio classification and segmentation. IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 10, 7, 504--516.
31
 
32
McFarlane, D. C. 2002. Comparison of four primary methods for coordinating the interruption of people in human-computer interaction. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 17, 1, 63--139.
 
33
McFarlane, D. C. 1999. Coordinating the interruption of people in human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT 1999).
34
 
35
 
36
Oliver, N., Horvitz, E., and Garg, A. 2002. Layered representations for recognizing office activity. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (ICMI 2002). 3--8.
 
37
Perlow, L. A. 1999. The time famine: Toward a sociology of work time. In Admin. Sci. Quart. 44, 1, 57--81.
 
38
39
 
40
 
41
42
 
43

CITED BY  33


REVIEW

"Claudia Roda : Reviewer"

How can a system decide whether it is appropriate to interrupt a person's activity to report, for example, the availability of new information, or the arrival of an email or phone call? The authors of this paper argue "that simple sensors can supp  more...

Collaborative Colleagues:
James Fogarty: colleagues
Scott E. Hudson: colleagues
Christopher G. Atkeson: colleagues
Daniel Avrahami: colleagues
Jodi Forlizzi: colleagues
Sara Kiesler: colleagues
Johnny C. Lee: colleagues
Jie Yang: colleagues