skip to main content
10.1145/3472307.3484165acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshaiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How Compatible is Alexa with Dual Tasking? — Towards Intelligent Personal Assistants for Dual-Task Situations

Authors Info & Claims
Published:09 November 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Previous literature has reported that users consider hands-free and eyes-free interaction as one of the prime features of IPAs (Intelligent Personal Assistants). Hands-free and eyes-free interaction enables dual tasking. Although users prefer dual tasking with IPAs, it is unknown to what degree current IPAs are compatible with dual tasking. To determine IPA efficiency while dual tasking, we investigate cognitive load in dual-task scenarios with IPAs. In our experiment, we selected a rhythm game as the primary task and everyday IPA requests as secondary tasks. The secondary tasks belonged to four common categories: information search, multimedia control, smart home control, and turn-taking conversations. The findings show that IPAs need significant improvement to support dual tasking. Out of the four categories, only tasks in the smart home and multimedia categories were appropriate for dual tasking, whereas turn-taking conversation and information search had a high cognitive load. Task completion time was significantly different between tasks, but the penalty on the accuracy of the primary task was small. In interviews we found that, due to information abundance in IPA responses and high time pressure during task completion, users tended to make several mistakes. Based on our findings and observations we derive four design recommendations that facilitate dual-tasking while using IPAs.

References

  1. Piotr D. Adamczyk and Brian P. Bailey. 2004. If Not Now, When? The Effects of Interruption at Different Moments within Task Execution. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 271–278. https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985727Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Shashank Ahire and Michael Rohs. 2020. Tired of Wake Words? Moving Towards Seamless Conversations with Intelligent Personal Assistants. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (Bilbao, Spain) (CUI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 20, 3 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3405755.3406141Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Brian P. Bailey, Joseph A. Konstan, and John V. Carlis. 2001. The Effects of Interruptions on Task Performance, Annoyance, and Anxiety in the User Interface. In Proceedings INTERACT ’01. IOS Press, 593–601.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Frank Bentley, Chris Luvogt, Max Silverman, Rushani Wirasinghe, Brooke White, and Danielle Lottridge. 2018. Understanding the Long-Term Use of Smart Speaker Assistants. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 2, 3, Article 91 (Sept. 2018), 24 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3264901Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Narae Cha, Auk Kim, Cheul Young Park, Soowon Kang, Mingyu Park, Jae-Gil Lee, Sangsu Lee, and Uichin Lee. 2020. Hello There! Is Now a Good Time to Talk? Opportune Moments for Proactive Interactions with Smart Speakers. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 4, 3, Article 74 (Sept. 2020), 28 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411810Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Minji Cho, Sang-su Lee, and Kun-Pyo Lee. 2019. Once a Kind Friend is Now a Thing: Understanding How Conversational Agents at Home Are Forgotten. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference (San Diego, CA, USA) (DIS ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1557–1569. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322332Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Benjamin R. Cowan, Nadia Pantidi, David Coyle, Kellie Morrissey, Peter Clarke, Sara Al-Shehri, David Earley, and Natasha Bandeira. 2017. “What Can i Help You with?”: Infrequent Users’ Experiences of Intelligent Personal Assistants. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Vienna, Austria) (MobileHCI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 43, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3098279.3098539Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Mary Czerwinski, Ed Cutrell, and Eric Horvitz. 2000. Instant Messaging and Interruption: Influence of Task Type on Performance. (December 2000), 356–361. OZCHI 2000 Conference Proceedings.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Justin Edwards, Christian Janssen, Sandy Gould, and Benjamin R. Cowan. 2021. Eliciting Spoken Interruptions to Inform Proactive Speech Agent Design. In CUI 2021 - 3rd Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (Bilbao (online), Spain) (CUI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 23, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3469595.3469618Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Justin Edwards, He Liu, Tianyu Zhou, Sandy J. J. Gould, Leigh Clark, Philip Doyle, and Benjamin R. Cowan. 2019. Multitasking with Alexa: How Using Intelligent Personal Assistants Impacts Language-Based Primary Task Performance. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (Dublin, Ireland) (CUI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 4, 7 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3342775.3342785Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Debjyoti Ghosh, Can Liu, Shengdong Zhao, and Kotaro Hara. 2020. Commanding and Re-Dictation: Developing Eyes-Free Voice-Based Interaction for Editing Dictated Text. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 27, 4, Article 28 (Aug. 2020), 31 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3390889Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Mingjun He, Jianbin Guo, and Shengkui Zeng. 2020. Cognitive Load Measurement and Impact Analysis on Performance in Dual-Task Situations. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 303–307. https://doi.org/10.1145/3425329.3425388Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Shamsi T. Iqbal, Yun-Cheng Ju, and Eric Horvitz. 2010. Cars, Calls, and Cognition: Investigating Driving and Divided Attention. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1281–1290. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753518Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Myounghoon Jeon, Benjamin K. Davison, Michael A. Nees, Jeff Wilson, and Bruce N. Walker. 2009. Enhanced Auditory Menu Cues Improve Dual Task Performance and Are Preferred with In-Vehicle Technologies(AutomotiveUI ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1145/1620509.1620528Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. David R. Large, Gary Burnett, Ben Anyasodo, and Lee Skrypchuk. 2016. Assessing Cognitive Demand during Natural Language Interactions with a Digital Driving Assistant. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Ann Arbor, MI, USA) (Automotive’UI 16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1145/3003715.3005408Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Terri Lenox, Neil Pilarski, and Lance Leathers. 2012. The Effects of Interruptions on Remembering Task Information. 5 (10 2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Yun Liu, Lu Wang, William R. Kearns, Linda Wagner, John Raiti, Yuntao Wang, and Weichao Yuwen. 2021. Integrating a Voice User Interface into a Virtual Therapy Platform. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451595Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Ewa Luger and Abigail Sellen. 2016. ”Like Having a Really Bad PA”: The Gulf Between User Expectation and Experience of Conversational Agents. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5286–5297. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858288Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Christine Murad, Cosmin Munteanu, Benjamin R. Cowan, and Leigh Clark. 2019. Revolution or Evolution? Speech Interaction and HCI Design Guidelines. IEEE Pervasive Computing 18, 2 (2019), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2019.2906991Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Babette Park and Roland Brünken. 2015. The Rhythm Method: A New Method for Measuring Cognitive Load—An Experimental Dual-Task Study. Applied Cognitive Psychology 29, 2 (2015), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3100 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/acp.3100Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Jennifer Pearson, Simon Robinson, Thomas Reitmaier, Matt Jones, Shashank Ahire, Anirudha Joshi, Deepak Sahoo, Nimish Maravi, and Bhakti Bhikne. 2019. StreetWise: Smart Speakers vs Human Help in Public Slum Settings. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 96, 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300326Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Martin Porcheron, Joel E. Fischer, Stuart Reeves, and Sarah Sharples. 2018. Voice Interfaces in Everyday Life. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174214Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. R. Ratwani, Alyssa E. Andrews, Jenny D. Sousk, and J. Trafton. 2008. The Effect of Interruption Modality on Primary Task Resumption. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 52(2008), 393 – 397.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Simon Robinson, Jennifer Pearson, Shashank Ahire, Rini Ahirwar, Bhakti Bhikne, Nimish Maravi, and Matt Jones. 2018. Revisiting “Hole in the Wall” Computing: Private Smart Speakers and Public Slum Settings. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 498, 11 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174072Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Ben F. Rubin and Ry Crist. 2019. What Amazon’s Alexa will tell us in 20191. Retrieved September 6 2021 from https://www.cnet.com/home/smart-home/what-amazon-alexa-will-tell-us-in-2019/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Dario D. Salvucci, Daniel Markley, Mark Zuber, and Duncan P. Brumby. 2007. IPod Distraction: Effects of Portable Music-Player Use on Driver Performance(CHI ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240665Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Ben Sawyer, Joonbum Lee, Jonathan Dobres, Bruce Mehler, Joseph Coughlin, and Bryan Reimer. 2016. Effects of a Voice Interface on Mirror Check Decrements in Older and Younger Multitasking Drivers. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 60 (09 2016), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. ERIC HAL SCHWARTZ. 2019. LifePod is Taking Reservations for ‘Proactive’ Voice Assistant and Smart Speaker for the Elderly. voiceBot. Retrieved September 6 2021 from https://voicebot.ai/2019/06/27/lifepod-is-taking-reservations-for-proactive-voice-assistant-and-smart-speaker-for-the-elderly/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Alex Sciuto, Arnita Saini, Jodi Forlizzi, and Jason I. Hong. 2018. ”Hey Alexa, What’s Up?”: A Mixed-Methods Studies of In-Home Conversational Agent Usage. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Hong Kong, China) (DIS ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 857–868. https://doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196772Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Katie Seaborn and Jacqueline Urakami. 2021. Measuring Voice UX Quantitatively: A Rapid Review. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451712Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. David Strayer, Joel Cooper, Jonna Turrill, James Coleman, and Rachel Hopman. 2016. Talking to your car can drive you to distraction. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 1 (12 2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0018-3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. David Strayer, Joel Cooper, Jonna Turrill, James Coleman, and Rachel Hopman. 2017. The smartphone and the driver’s cognitive workload: A comparison of Apple, Google, and Microsoft’s intelligent personal assistants. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale 71 (06 2017), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000104Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Bernhard Suhm. 2003. Towards best practices for speech user interface design.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Bernhard Suhm, Brad Myers, and Alex Waibel. 2001. Multimodal Error Correction for Speech User Interfaces. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 8, 1 (March 2001), 60–98. https://doi.org/10.1145/371127.371166Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Milka Trajkova and Aqueasha Martin-Hammond. 2020. ”Alexa is a Toy”: Exploring Older Adults’ Reasons for Using, Limiting, and Abandoning Echo. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376760Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Jing Wei, Tilman Dingler, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2021. Developing the Proactive Speaker Prototype Based on Google Home. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451642Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Zhuxiaona Wei and James A. Landay. 2018. Evaluating Speech-Based Smart Devices Using New Usability Heuristics. IEEE Pervasive Computing 17, 2 (2018), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2018.022511249Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Wikipedia contributors. 2019. NASA-TLX — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NASA-TLX&oldid=916786772 [Online; accessed 24-February-2021].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Wikipedia contributors. 2021. Osu! — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osu!&oldid=1007577903 [Online; accessed 21-February-2021].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Yunhan Wu, Justin Edwards, Orla Cooney, Anna Bleakley, Philip R. Doyle, Leigh Clark, Daniel Rough, and Benjamin R. Cowan. 2020. Mental Workload and Language Production in Non-Native Speaker IPA Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (Bilbao, Spain) (CUI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 3, 8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3405755.3406118Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. How Compatible is Alexa with Dual Tasking? — Towards Intelligent Personal Assistants for Dual-Task Situations
    Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      HAI '21: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction
      November 2021
      447 pages
      ISBN:9781450386203
      DOI:10.1145/3472307

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 9 November 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate121of404submissions,30%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format