A message preview appears while you are checking a deployment, reconciling a spreadsheet, or editing a paragraph. You answer it in seconds. The interruption is over—but the vulnerable moment may be the first thing you do when you return.
The useful answer: brief interruptions can increase the chance of resuming an ordered task at the wrong step. In two controlled experiments, the immediate increase was 2.3 to 4.0 percentage points. The study did not measure a universal recovery time or a percentage of workplace productivity lost.
Why Study Such Short Interruptions?
Many consequential mistakes are not failures of knowledge. They are placekeeping errors: repeating a step, skipping one, or restarting in the wrong place. Erik Altmann, J. Gregory Trafton, and David Hambrick asked whether an interruption lasting only a few seconds could disturb the mental representation of “where am I?”
The question matters because silencing a phone, reading a banner, or answering a short question can take less time than the work step it interrupts. A small distraction can still move attention away from the goal that tells you what comes next.
What the Experiment Actually Tested
A controlled test of losing your place
Participants performed a repeating seven-step computer task. Each step required a different judgment, so doing the task correctly meant remembering both the rule and the current position in the sequence.
Because the interruptions were introduced experimentally, the study supports a causal conclusion inside this laboratory task: the brief interruption produced an immediate increase in sequence errors. It does not establish the size of that increase in ordinary work.
The Result in Absolute Numbers
| Experiment | First step | Later steps 2–5 | Absolute difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4.36-second interruption | 5.8% | 1.8% | +4.0 points |
| 2.76-second interruption | 4.3% | 2.0% | +2.3 points |
The relative version sounds larger: the error rate more than tripled in the first experiment and more than doubled in the second. The absolute version is what helps you judge practical importance. The extra risk was 2.3 to 4.0 percentage points, concentrated on the very first resumed step.
The paper reported no statistically detectable interruption effect on nonsequence errors. Response time changed less than sequence accuracy. That pattern is more precise than saying that interruptions “destroy attention”: people were temporarily more likely to lose their place.
Has the narrow result held up?
Yes, with important boundary conditions. A 2019 independent study reproduced the post-interruption error spike in a sequential task. In 2026, another experiment analyzed 89 participants and directly compared interrupted steps with their corresponding uninterrupted steps. It again found more sequence errors after interruptions, with no detectable effect on other errors. It also found that interruption frequency changed performance, reinforcing that there is no single cost that applies everywhere.
What This Evidence Does Not Prove
The experiment measured placekeeping, not your whole workday.
- The participants were university students completing an artificial sequential task.
- The study did not test smartphone notifications, Slack, coding, writing, or a workplace productivity metric.
- The 1.8% and 2.0% reference rates came from later steps after the same interruption, not a separate uninterrupted group.
- It did not measure how many minutes people need to “fully refocus.”
- It did not show lasting attention damage, lost IQ, or a universal percentage of productivity lost.
The result is most relevant when order matters: publishing and deployment checklists, coding changes, editing passes, accounting, form completion, recipes, assembly, or maintenance. Applying it to those settings is a reasoned translation, not something those professions were directly tested on.
A Lightweight Route Back
If the interruption can wait, finishing the current substep is the simplest protection. If it cannot wait, leave a state marker before opening the new task.
Leave three lines, then verify one step on return.
When you return, read the note and verify the last completed step once before acting. If writing the marker takes more effort than it saves, shorten it.
This exact three-line note was not tested in the 2014 experiment. The recommendation combines several adjacent findings:
- A short opportunity to prepare for an interruption helped people resume faster in an earlier laboratory study.
- Preserving useful contextual cues can help recovery; changing those cues can make it harder.
- A 2018 “ready-to-resume” research program found that briefly planning where and how to resume reduced measured attention residue and protected performance on the interrupting task. It did not prove fewer errors after returning to the original task.
- A 2021 review of 33 laboratory experiments and 49 interventions found better primary-task accuracy and shorter resumption lag on average, with substantial variation by task and intervention.
- A 2025 field study tested a closely related three-question routine and found less attention residue but more average fatigue—good reason to keep the note light.
Try It for Seven Days
Measure resumption, not a promised productivity percentage.
- Choose one recurring task where skipped or repeated steps create rework.
- Use the three-line marker whenever an interruption is unavoidable.
- Record whether you resumed at the correct step and how long it took to identify the next action.
- Compare marked and unmarked resumptions at the end of the week.
- Keep the practice only if it reduces confusion without becoming another administrative burden.
For avoidable interruptions, reduce the decision at the source: silence nonessential alerts, batch message checks, or use a scheduled focus window for the part of the day when ordered work matters most.
The Honest Takeaway
A few seconds of interruption can create an immediate, measurable placekeeping cost. In the 2014 experiments, first-step sequence errors rose by 2.3 to 4.0 percentage points. Later experiments support the narrow effect while showing that task design and interruption patterns matter.
Protect ordered work from avoidable alerts. When a switch is unavoidable, leave yourself a precise route back—and treat that note as a practical aid, not a scientifically guaranteed productivity hack.
Sources and Verification
- Altmann EM, Trafton JG, Hambrick DZ. Momentary interruptions can derail the train of thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2014;143(1):215–226. DOI · PubMed.
- Radović T, et al. Opposite effects of interruption frequency on performance in interrupted and uninterrupted multistep task. Psychological Research. 2026. DOI and full article.
- Kopacz A, et al. Independent replication using a sequential placekeeping task. 2019. Full text in PubMed Central.
- Leroy S, Glomb TM. Tasks Interrupted: … How a “Ready-to-Resume” Plan Mitigates the Effects. Organization Science. 2018;29(3):380–397. DOI.
- Guo J, Chen T, Xie Z, Or CK. Effects of interventions to reduce the negative consequences of interruptions on task performance. Applied Ergonomics. 2021;97:103506. DOI · PubMed.
- Trafton JG, Altmann EM, Brock DP, Mintz FE. Preparing to resume an interrupted task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 2003;58(5):583–603. DOI.
- Hodgetts HM, Jones DM. Contextual cues aid recovery from interruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2006;32(5):1120–1132. DOI.
- Van Zoonen W, Scharp YS. Ready to resume? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2025. DOI.
Integrity check complete No retraction, expression of concern, or correction affecting these conclusions was found in the publisher, PubMed, or Crossref records checked on August 22, 2026.