Predicting human interruptibility with sensors: a Wizard of Oz feasibility study

ABSTRACT

A person seeking someone else's attention is normally able to quickly assess how interruptible they are. This assessment allows for behavior we perceive as natural, socially appropriate, or simply polite. On the other hand, today's computer systems are almost entirely oblivious to the human world they operate in, and typically have no way to take into account the interruptibility of the user. This paper presents a Wizard of Oz study exploring whether, and how, robust sensor-based predictions of interruptibility might be constructed, which sensors might be most useful to such predictions, and how simple such sensors might be.The study simulates a range of possible sensors through human coding of audio and video recordings. Experience sampling is used to simultaneously collect randomly distributed self-reports of interruptibility. Based on these simulated sensors, we construct statistical models predicting human interruptibility and compare their predictions with the collected self-report data. The results of these models, although covering a demographically limited sample, are very promising, with the overall accuracy of several models reaching about 78%. Additionally, a model tuned to avoiding unwanted interruptions does so for 90% of its predictions, while retaining 75% overall accuracy.

REFERENCES

• 1: Adams, M.J., Tenney, Y.J., and Pew, R.W. (1995) "Situation Awareness and the Cognitive Management of Complex Systems." Human Factors, 37(1), pp. 85--104.
• 2: Bellotti, V., and Edwards, K. (2001) "Intelligibility and Accountability: Human Considerations in Context-Aware Systems." Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 16, pp. 193--212.
• 3: Christopher J. C. Burges, A Tutorial on Support Vector Machines for Pattern Recognition, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, v.2 n.2, p.121-167, June 1998 [doi>10.1023/A:1009715923555]
• 4: Dietterich, T.G., and Bakiri, G. (1995) "Solving Multiclass Learning via Error-Correcting Output Codes", Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2, pp. 263--286.
• 5: Lisa Feldman Barrett , Daniel J. Barrett, An introduction to computerized experience sampling in psychology, Social Science Computer Review, v.19 n.2, p.175-185, June 12 2001 [doi>10.1177/089443930101900204]
• 6: Yoav Freund , Robert E. Schapire, A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, v.55 n.1, p.119-139, Aug. 1997 [doi>10.1006/jcss.1997.1504]
• 7: Gillie, T. and Broadbent, D. (1989) "What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity." Psychological Research (1989)50: pp. 243--250.
• 8: Hess, S.M., and Detweiler, M. (1994). "Training to Reduce the Disruptive Effects of Interruptions." Proceedings of the HFES 38th Annual Meeting, v2, pp.1173--1177.
• 9: 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." Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence.
• 10: James M. Hudson , Jim Christensen , Wendy A. Kellogg , Thomas Erickson, "I'd be overwhelmed, but it's just one more thing to do": availability and interruption in research management, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Changing our world, changing ourselves, April 20-25, 2002, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA [doi>10.1145/503376.503394]
• 11: McFarlane, D.C. (1999) "Coordinating the Interruption of People in Human-Computer Interaction." Proceedings of INTERACT'99, pp. 295--303.
• 12: Thomas M. Mitchell, Machine Learning, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 1997
• 13: Brid O'Conaill , David Frohlich, Timespace in the workplace: dealing with interruptions, Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems, p.262-263, May 07-11, 1995, Denver, Colorado, United States [doi>10.1145/223355.223665]
• 14: Sridhar Seshadri , Zur Shapira, Managerial Allocation of Time and Effort: The Effects of Interruptions, Management Science, v.47 n.5, p.647-662, May 2001 [doi>10.1287/mnsc.47.5.647.10481]
• 15: J. Ross Quinlan, C4.5: programs for machine learning, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1993
• 16: Ian H. Witten , Eibe Frank, Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques with Java implementations, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 2000
• 17: Zeignaric, B. (1927) Das Behalten erledigter und unerledigter Handlungern. Psychologische Forschung 9, pp. 1--85.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.2 User/Machine Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.3 Group and Organization Interfaces

  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.6 Learning

Keywords:
context-aware computing, machine learning, sensor-based interfaces, situationally appropriate interaction