ORIGINAL RESEARCH

published: 06 November 2019

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02522

The Impact of a Mnemonic Acronym

on Learning and Performing a
Procedural Task and Its Resilience
Toward Interruptions
Tara Radović* and Dietrich Manzey
Institute of Psychology and Ergonomics, Berlin Institute of Technology, Berlin, Germany

The present study examines the potential impact of a mnemonic acronym on

the learning, the execution, the resilience toward interruptions, and the mental
representation of an eight-step procedural task with sequential constraints. 65
participants were required to learn a sequential task, including eight different steps which
had to be carried out in a predefined sequence. 33 participants were provided with the
acronym “WORTKLAU” as a mnemonic to support the learning and execution of the task
and the other 32 participants had to learn and execute the task without such support.
Each letter of the acronym coded one step of the task, involving a binary decision about
Edited by: a certain property of the complex stimulus. In 60 out of 72 trials of the task, participants
Mark Nieuwenstein,
University of Groningen, Netherlands
were interrupted between different steps, and had to perform a 2-back interruption
Reviewed by:
task for 6 or 30 s, after which they had to resume the procedural task as quickly
Alex Burgoyne, as possible at the correct step. Learning times, performance in uninterrupted trials,
Michigan State University,
and post-interruption performance measures were analyzed. Results of Experiment 1
United States
Herbert Heuer, suggest that the mnemonic acronym enhanced learning of the task sequence, and
Leibniz Research Centre for Working provide some evidence for a hierarchical mental representation of the task, resulting
Environment and Human Factors
(IfADo), Germany
in faster resumption times at certain steps of the procedure after an interruption. In
*Correspondence:
Experiment 2 the internal structure of the acronym was even emphasized by a hyphen
Tara Radović at the borders of the two words included in the acronym (WORT-KLAU). This improved
tara.radovic@tu-berlin.de;
the resilience toward interruptions at the border step of the procedure significantly. Our
radovic.tara@gmail.com
results provide evidence for beneficial effects of mnemonic acronym particularly for the
Specialty section: learning of a sequential procedural task. In addition, they suggest that the structure
This article was submitted to
of mnemonic acronym directly impacts the mental representation of a task. Finally,
Cognition,
a section of the journal they show that mnemonic acronyms could be used to improve the resilience toward
Frontiers in Psychology detrimental effect of interruptions, at least at certain task steps of a procedural task.
Received: 22 August 2019
Accepted: 24 October 2019 Keywords: interruptions, sequential task, resumption time, goal activation, sequential error, mnemonic technique,
acronym, procedure learning
Published: 06 November 2019
Citation:
Radović T and Manzey D (2019)
The Impact of a Mnemonic Acronym
INTRODUCTION
on Learning and Performing
a Procedural Task and Its Resilience
Accomplishing a complex task in everyday life or professional settings often requires to remember
Toward Interruptions. how to conduct a procedure that consists of a sequence of steps, which have to be performed in a
Front. Psychol. 10:2522. predefined order. A simple example from everyday life is the sequence of actions needed to make
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02522 boiled eggs. To get the eggs right, one needs to follow a sequence of steps, and any commission of

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 November 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2522

Radović and Manzey Mnemonic Acronym and Task Performance

sequence errors that is deviating from the right order (e.g., Applied to procedural tasks that need to be performed
putting the eggs in the water before it boils) or omitting from memory, the provision of acronyms composed of letters
to perform a step (e.g., missing to pierce the egg before which represent the different steps might have at least three
putting it in the boiling water) may compromise the result. beneficial effects. First, it might enhance learning, retention, and
Admittedly, the procedure to cook eggs is fairly easy and retrieval of the steps in correct order. This is suggested by early
consequences of sequence errors in this example are only studies demonstrating advantages of mnemonic acronyms on the
minor. However, there are other (professional) settings where learning and reproduction of verbal material (Nelson and Archer,
committing sequence errors while performing a procedural 1972; Stalder, 2005). Positive effects of mnemonic acronyms were
task can have much more serious consequences. Examples are shown particularly in situations where the order of items had
the execution of procedures by pilots on the flight deck, by to be learned and retrieved (Nelson and Archer, 1972; Morris
physicians in an emergency department, or by nurses providing and Cook, 1978), whereas usually no effects were found where
medication in a hospital. Here committing an error may have the identity of individual items needed to be retrieved (Nelson
fatal consequences, which can hardly be corrected, and this and Archer, 1972; Morris and Cook, 1978; Carlson et al., 1981).
risk is even elevated in case of interruptions which have The specific benefit of mnemonic acronyms for memorization of
frequently been observed in these settings (Latorella, 1996; item order, but not item identity, might account for inconsistent
Dismukes et al., 1998; Drews, 2007; Scott-Cawiezell et al., findings regarding positive effects of mnemonic acronyms in
2007; Westbrook et al., 2010). As a countermeasure ensuring verbal learning (Boltwood and Blick, 1970; Gruneberg, 1973;
the correct execution of procedural tasks and making them Cook, 1989). For that reason, it seems at least plausible that the
more resilient toward interruptions, they often are supported availability of acronyms would also support learning the correct
by different sorts of checklists, which shall reduce memory order of different steps constituting a procedural task.
demands and prevent the commission of sequence errors, Second, the availability of an acronym might also increase the
primarily the missing of important steps (Latorella, 1999; execution speed of the different steps of a procedural task, i.e.,
Loukopoulos et al., 2001, 2003). However, checklists are not serve as a process mnemonic tool (Higbee, 1987; Manalo, 2002).
always available and there are number of instances where even This is expected, because the availability of a pronounceable
important and safety-critical procedures have to be performed acronym provides a cuing structure whose inherent links between
based on memory only (i.e., so called memory items in the different letters might strengthen the associations between
aviation, Hunt, 1988; Au, 2005). This provides a number successive steps (Malhotra, 1991), which in turn could improve
of cognitive challenges similar to order memory and serial the transfer between the steps, leading to an overall increase of
recall (e.g., Henson, 1998; Hurlstone et al., 2014), including speed and accuracy in the execution phase.
initial learning of the sequence, retaining the sequence across Third, it can be assumed that mnemonic acronyms might
time, and, most important, retrieving the correct order of enhance the resilience of a sequential procedural task toward
steps once the procedure has to be executed. According to adverse effects of interruptions. Adverse effects of interruptions,
some authors, the latter is assumed to involve a so-called that is, additional time needed to resume a primary task after an
placekeeping process, i.e., monitoring the progress within a interruption (resumption time) and elevated risk of committing
procedural task by keeping track of completed and to-be- sequence errors (i.e., skipping or repeating a step), have often
executed steps (Carlson and Cassenti, 2004; Trafton et al., 2011; been reported when resuming the primary task. Among other
Hambrick and Altmann, 2015). factors, the interruption effects depend on the length and
Research from serial learning and recall suggest that these complexity of the interruption task (Hodgetts and Jones, 2006;
challenges might effectively be supported by the use of mnemonic Cades et al., 2007; Monk et al., 2008, see for a review Trafton
techniques. It has been shown that the support in organizing and Monk, 2007). These effects are often interpreted within the
the to-be-remembered material in the learning phase enhances memory for goals model proposed by Altmann and Trafton
learning, has long-term effect on retention of material, and (2002). The model states that task goals need to be activated in
leads to better performance in the recall phase by providing working memory in order to perform a cognitive task. Assuming
hierarchical organization of the learnt material (e.g., Miller, 1956; that cognitive goals underlie the same constraints as other items
Bower, 1970; Bellezza, 1981; Malhotra, 1991; Higbee, 2001). One in working memory, active strengthening is required to reach
such technique is the administration of mnemonic acronyms, i.e., and maintain sufficient level of activation in order to retrieve
pronounceable phrases or words where each letter represents an the goals successfully. Interruptions of a procedural task cause
item that has to be remembered in the order given by the phrase a decrease of the activation of related task goals, unless the
(e.g., first letter mnemonic; Malhotra, 1991; Higbee, 2001). Use goals are rehearsed while performing the interruption task. Thus,
of acronyms for memorizing items in a serial order is widely in order to resume the procedural task at the correct position
present in education (Cook, 1989; Miller and Mercer, 1993; after an interruption, the position within the task needs to be
Stalder, 2005), and in clinical practice (Bortle, 2010). Also, it rehearsed during the interruption, and the activation level of
was found that people voluntary develop acronyms and organize the goal related to the correct task step needs to be elevated
information in chunks (Cook, 1989; Bower, 1970; Blick and again, based on internal or external cues. It seems plausible
Waite, 1971; Blick et al., 1972; Gruneberg, 1973; Bortle, 2010), that mnemonic acronyms could provide simple internal cues
which also points to the potentially positive effects of such (e.g., letters instead of words or sentences) for rehearsal and re-
mnemonic for order learning and recall. activation of task steps, and consequently enhance goal activation

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 November 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2522

Radović and Manzey Mnemonic Acronym and Task Performance

in memory. Thus, mnemonic acronyms could be helpful during of performance at different steps of the UNRAVEL task revealed
an interruption, when the goals of the primary task have to an interesting incidental finding. Namely, the risk of sequence
be rehearsed in parallel with the execution of the interruption errors was relatively low particularly for the first (U) and last (L)
task, as well as after the interruption, when reorienting and re- step of the task whereas more sequence errors were committed
activation of the primary task goals take place. These effects at the middle steps, even when no interruption preceded the
should be reflected in decreased resumption times and in a step directly. The authors suggest that the obtained patterns were
decreased risk of sequence errors after interruptions, compared due to the mnemonic acronym and its structure, which, they
to a situation where no acronym is available. assume, have organized the task hierarchically in accordance with
Given these possible advantages and the available evidence the word boundaries of the acronym (Altmann et al., 2014).
for specific benefits of mnemonic acronyms in terms of However, since no control condition (i.e., without an acronym)
order memorization, the provision of mnemonic acronyms to was included in this interruption research, any conclusions
support learning, retention, and retrieval of procedural tasks concerning the possible effect of the acronym on interruption
with sequential constraints seems to be promising. Despite the performance seem to be hardly conclusive based on the available
examples of the use of acronyms to remember and retrieve the data of this previous work.
correct sequence of steps in a procedure (e.g., decision making As far as we are aware, there is actually only one UNRAVEL
procedures, Hörmann, 1994), the performance consequences study, thus far, which had included a no-acronym control group.
of this mnemonic technique on learning and execution of However, this study did not focus directly on the impact of an
procedural tasks were not examined in a systematic manner, thus acronym as mnemonic on performance (Hambrick et al., 20181 .
far, to the best of our knowledge. Instead, it addressed how individual differences in general ability
A new experimental paradigm, the UNRAVEL paradigm, impacted performance in a placekeeping task with vs. without
which principally seems to be suitable to address this question, activation of task-relevant knowledge. Despite the different aims
was recently introduced by Altmann et al. (2014). UNRAVEL of that study, a look at the data of the different conditions at
is an acronym where each letter represents a step that needs to least suggest that the no-acronym condition was somewhat more
be executed in response to a complex stimulus, with the letter demanding than the acronym condition, as participants in the
sequence cueing the correct order of steps of the sequence. The no-acronym group more often consulted the help option than
complex task stimuli in this paradigm are composed of a letter, in the acronym group. No differences in overall mean response
a number, and a box with different features (e.g., font, color, times (RTs) and rates of sequence error were found between the
location). The different steps that have to be performed from conditions, though, which is in contrast to the assumption of
memory in correct order include responses to a total of seven a generally beneficial mnemonic effect of an acronym on the
questions concerning the features of the given stimulus. Thus execution of a serial task. However, because the specific effects
far, this paradigm has primarily been used to study consequences of a mnemonic on performance in serial tasks were not the
of interruptions on serial task performance (Altmann et al., primary aim of this study, the authors just used very general
2014, 2017; Altmann and Trafton, 2015). For this purpose, the performance measures, not addressing any specific effects of the
UNRAVEL task was repeatedly interrupted between steps by a mnemonic on, for example, learning times, and resilience toward
simple interruption task. In order to investigate the performance interruptions or task representation. Thus, the conclusions of
consequences of these interruptions, the time needed to resume this study must be considered as very limited with respect to
the task (resumption time), the number of sequence errors (i.e., the performance consequences of acronym mnemonics on serial
instances where the task was resumed at the incorrect step), and task performance.
the number of non-sequence errors (i.e., instances where the task The current research aims at a first systematic investigation on
was resumed at the correct step, but with the wrong response) the performance effects of a mnemonic acronym vs. no-acronym
were assessed. The obtained results replicated the standard effects on learning and performing a procedural task with sequential
in interruption research, namely that the adverse effects of constraints. For this purpose, we used a German adaptation of
interruptions, i.e., prolonged resumption times and an elevated the UNRAVEL task and contrasted conditions with and without
risk to commit a sequence error, become worse with increasing the mnemonic regarding three different aspects: the time needed
duration of the interruption task (Altmann et al., 2017). In for learning the task, the speed and accuracy of executing the
addition, two aspects of the results suggest that the mnemonic task without an interruption, and the potential of the acronym to
acronym supporting the task, might have made a difference in structure the task and to enhance the resilience of the task (or at
performing this task. First, even though the UNRAVEL task least certain steps) toward detrimental performance effects after
poses comparatively high memory demands, the observed rates an interruption. Our adaptation of the UNRAVEL task used a
of sequence errors after interruptions were surprisingly low similar task stimulus to the one used by Altmann et al. (2014),
(4–16%), and essentially in the same range or only somewhat but included a total of eight instead of seven task steps, which
higher than the ones usually obtained with much less demanding had to be performed in a certain order. In the acronym condition,
primary tasks and comparable durations of short interruptions the sequence of tasks building the procedure was represented by
(e.g., Monk et al., 2008). This suggests that the availability of the acronym WORTKLAU, consisting of two single one-syllable
the acronym could have compensated for the higher memory German words, i.e., “Wort” (engl. word) and “Klau” (engl. theft).
demands of the UNRAVEL task, compared to a condition where
the acronym would not have been available. Second, an analysis 1
We are grateful to one of the reviewers to make us aware of this study.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 November 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2522

Radović and Manzey Mnemonic Acronym and Task Performance

Enlarging the procedure to eight steps and using the 2-word SD = 2.97) performed the task with support of an acronym and
acronym was chosen to make the task even more complex and the remaining 38 participants (24 female, 14 male; M = 25.16,
to have an acronym with a salient semantic structure including a SD = 2.85) performed the task without an acronym. A sample size
central position marked by word boundaries. of 32 participants per group was determined, based on a G-power
In the first experiment, participants performed the primary sample size calculator (Faul et al., 2007) for α = 0.05, power of
task either with the support of the acronym (from the learning 0.95, and an effect size of 0.20. Such effect size is in the range
phase on) or without an acronym. In the latter case, they of previously reported effect sizes for main performance effects
had to learn the eight steps and their order without any sort of interruption presence and length (e.g., Altmann et al., 2014,
of mnemonic technique provided. During performance of the 2017). However, no predictions regarding the sizes of specific
task, we further varied whether or not interruptions of two effects of providing an acronym could be drawn from previous
different lengths occurred at different steps. First, we expected studies and, thus, were only assumed to be in the same range.
shorter learning times in the acronym condition compared to the Participants were recruited through a web portal of Technische
condition where no acronym was available. Second, we predicted Universität Berlin. For participation in the experiment, a course
that having a support of a mnemonic acronym would lead to credit or monetary compensation were offered.
faster and more accurate execution of the whole sequence of
steps compared to the situation without the acronym. This was Tasks
expected based on the assumption that the sequential associations
The primary task was a German adaptation of the UNRAVEL task
between steps would be improved by the availability of the
introduced by Altmann et al. (2014). It follows the same general
acronym. Third, we assumed that availability of the mnemonic
approach and objectives as the original task, but also takes into
acronym would improve the resilience toward interruptions,
account experiences of previous research with this task (Altmann
namely, that resumption times would be faster, and sequence
et al., 2014; Altmann and Trafton, 2015). As the UNRAVEL task,
errors at the first step after an interruption would be less frequent,
the German version also requires participants to respond to a
compared to the no-acronym condition. Based on the assumption
complex stimulus with a number of sequential responses which
that acronyms indeed facilitate the rehearsal of where the primary
have to be performed from memory in a predefined order. The
task was interrupted and also provide a salient internal cue to re-
stimuli of the primary task correspond to the original stimuli of
activate the task goal at the correct step, this effect should occur
the UNRAVEL task, with features adapted to a new and enlarged
independently of the length and position of an interruption.
set of choice rules that have to be applied in a given sequence
Finally, we assumed that the inherent semantic structure of
without any cues. That is, each stimulus consists of a dot, a
the acronym would also organize the cognitive representation
number (1, 2, 3, or 9), a letter (A, B, U, or X) and a box, which
of the task. That is, we assumed that the mnemonic acronym
differ according to eight different features: color of the dot (white
consisting of two words would facilitate a sort of chunking, i.e.,
or black), font style of the number (underlined or not), color
dividing the procedural task into two subunits in accordance
of the letter/number (red or blue), position of the letter/number
with the word boundaries within the acronym. In that case,
outside of the box (above or below), sound of letter (consonant or
this should be reflected in a faster learning time and an even
vowel), font style of the box (dotted or lined), position of the letter
higher resilience toward interruption effects, particularly for
in the alphabet (near to the beginning or the end), and parity of
interruptions occurring at the central position, compared to
the number (odd or even) (see Figure 1).
interruptions elsewhere during the task. This is suggested by the
In response to the stimulus, the participant has to go through a
observations of position effects in the UNRAVEL paradigm and
sequential list of eight choice rules, corresponding to the different
previous findings that interruptions are less disruptive if they
features, and to type the correct responses in a standard keyboard
occur after the completion of subtasks compared to the ones
in a prescribed order. As a mnemonic technique to support
positioned within subtasks (Monk et al., 2002, 2004; Botvinick
learning, retention, and correct execution of the sequence, the
and Bylsma, 2005; Bailey and Konstan, 2006). Whereas the results
WORTKLAU acronym was used. It can be considered as a sort of
of the first experiment allowed for an evaluation of most of these
a first-letter mnemonic representing the sequence of operations
hypotheses, the observed effects were somewhat ambiguous with
of the primary task by the respective first letter of one of the
respect to the effects of the acronym on the mental representation
response options, corresponding to the logic of the acronym
of the task. Thus, a second experiment was run, in which the
in the UNRAVEL task. The choice rules, the corresponding
inherent structure of the acronym was made even more salient
by use of a hyphen (“WORT-KLAU”).

EXPERIMENT 1
Materials and Methods
Participants
Seventy four university students, ranging in age from 18 to
30, participated in the study. They were randomly assigned to FIGURE 1 | Two examples of task stimuli of the primary WOTRKLAU task.
two groups. 36 participants (23 female, 11 male; M = 24.97,

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 November 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2522

Radović and Manzey Mnemonic Acronym and Task Performance

TABLE 1 | List of steps, choice rules, and possible answers in WORTKLAU task translated from German to English. Possible answers that form the acronym are
provided in both German (direct link to the acronym by first letter of one of the alternatives) and English.

Step Choice rules Possible responses to be typed in the keyboard

1 Dot is white or black W (weiss/White) S (schwarz/black)

2 Letter is without or with line O (ohne/without) M (mit/with)
3 Letter/number is red or blue R (rot/red) B (blau/blue)
4 Letter/number is below or above the box T (tiefer/below) H (hoeher/above)
5 Letter is consonant or vowel K (Konsonant/consonant) V (Vokal/vowel)
6 Box consists of lines or dots L (Linien/lines) P (Punkte/dots)
7 Letter is at the beginning or end of alphabet A (Anfang/beginning) E (Ende/end)
8 Number is odd or even U (ungerade/odd) G (gerade/even)

responses and the association with the acronym are shown the interruption task. After the 2-back interruption task was
in Table 1. introduced, a short practice trial (1 min) followed.
Compared to the UNRAVEL paradigm, the number of steps After this familiarization phase, participants had to pass a
to be performed in response to each stimulus has been enlarged knowledge test addressing the procedure and choice rules of
by one to a total of eight steps in the German WORTKLAU the sequential WORTKLAU task. However, before taking this
adaptation. This difference has two important consequences: test they could take as much time as they needed to learn
the memory demands of the WORTKLAU task are even higher the sequence. Participants, who then passed the knowledge
than in the UNRAVEL task and the acronym is composed of test, directly proceeded to the final training without feedback,
two single words of the same length (i.e., WORT and KLAU; which consisted of eight WORTKLAU trials with five trials
corresponding to the English words word and theft), which being interrupted after different steps. All other participants got
provides a semantic structure to the acronym by dividing it in additional learning time before they repeated the knowledge test
two parts. The latter makes it possible to study possible effects of and could start with the final training block. All participants
the acronym structure on the task execution in a controlled way. passed the knowledge test at the second try.
A numerical 2-back task (Moore and Ross, 1963) was used After the final training block, participants had a short break
as interruption task. In this task, participants are presented that was followed by the experimental data collection. This
with series of single numbers and need to respond when a main part of the experiment consisted of three experimental
presented number equals the one presented two places before. blocks, with 24 WORTKLAU trials per block, i.e., 72 trials in
The task places relatively high demands on working memory total. In each block, 20 trials were interrupted. Interruptions
by requiring a running memory update with each new number could occur at five different positions in the WORTKLAU
presented. It has been used in other interruption research sequence (i.e., before steps R, T, K, L, A), each interruption
before in order to suppress or at least hinder active rehearsal lasting for either 6 or 30 s. That is, each Position × Length
of where an interruption occurred in a primary task (e.g., combination of interruptions was presented twice per block. The
Monk et al., 2004, 2008). remaining four trials per block, i.e., 12 trials in total, were not
interrupted. These were used for assessing effects of the acronym
Procedure on uninterrupted performance and also used as baseline for
Participants were tested individually in the Human calculating interruption effects. Interrupted and uninterrupted
Performance Laboratory of the Chair of Work, Engineering trials were mixed randomly. Participants were instructed to
and Organizational Psychology at Technische Universität Berlin. proceed as quickly and accurately as possible through the
After signing an informed consent and filling in a demographic different steps of the WORTKLAU task. In case of errors, they
questionnaire addressing basic biographic characteristics (e.g., should not correct them, but continue working through the
age) and relevant experiences (e.g., typing skills), participants sequence. The interruption task always appeared immediately
were introduced to the WORTKLAU task. In the no-acronym upon the response to one of the steps of the WORTKLAU task,
group, the pre-defined order of choice rules was presented, but and replaced the WORTKLAU stimulus fully. During the 2-
the sequence of response options was mixed so that forming an back interruption task, one number at a time was presented in
acronym from them was not obvious. In contrast, the acronym the center of the screen as a part of short (4 items) or long
group was introduced to the mnemonic acronym as support (20 items) series with a presentation rate of 1.5 s. Immediately
for memorizing the different choice rules in the correct order. after the last item of the 2-back series, the stimulus of the
Afterward, in both groups followed a short practice phase primary task was presented again, and participants were required
including five trials of the task, which had to be performed with to resume the primary task as soon as possible at the correct
support of a handout describing the sequence of choices to be step, i.e., the step that should have followed the last performed
made. Immediate feedback on accuracy was provided on the step before the interruption. After the last step of a trial in
screen after each response. After the practice trials, participants the primary task was performed and before the new stimulus
continued with reading of instructions and familiarizing with was shown, a blank screen appeared for 300 ms. On average, a

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 November 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2522

Radović and Manzey Mnemonic Acronym and Task Performance

complete experimental session lasted 90 min. Before leaving, with preceding response. Only the steps answered correctly were
each participant a structured interview was conducted, which included in this measure.
addressed strategies they used for learning and execution of the
task (e.g., “Did you try to divide the task sequence into different Sequence errors
parts?,” “Was any position for you especially easy to resume after This measure was defined as the overall mean proportion of all
an interruption?”). In addition, participants subjectively assessed responses to the different steps within uninterrupted trials, where
their own performance in the primary and the interruption tasks a participant deviated from the prescribed order of the steps, by
on simple four-point Likert scales. either missing the steps (e.g., going directly from the W to the R
step) or repeating a step.
Design Non-sequence errors
For examining the effects of a mnemonic acronym on learning This measure was defined as the overall mean proportion of all
times, on overall performance in the uninterrupted trials of responses to the different steps within uninterrupted trials, where
the primary task, and on post-interruption performance, we a participant provided a response to a given step at the correct
contrasted the performance in the acronym group working with position of the trial, but the response was false (e.g., the stimuli
support of the WORTKLAU acronym, with the performance in presented contained a white dot, but the participant pressed the S
the no-acronym (control) group. instead of W key).
For investigating the effects of the mnemonic acronym on
resilience toward interruptions a 2 (Group) × 2 (Length) × 5 Resumption time
(Position) mixed factorial design was used. The first factor was Resumption time was defined as the time needed to return to
defined as a between-subjects factor representing the acronym a certain step of the primary task after an interruption. Based
and no-acronym groups. The second factor was defined as a on all interrupted trials, it was calculated for each given post-
within-subjects factor, representing the length of interruption interruption step (R, T, K, L, or A) individually, by subtracting the
(6 vs. 30 s). The third factor was again a within-subjects factor mean inter-response-interval for this step in the uninterrupted
and included five levels corresponding to the position in the trials from the time passed between the reappearance of the
sequence of response where an interruption occurred (before primary task stimulus and the response to this step on the
steps R, T, K, L, A). keyboard after an interruption. Only correct responses were
considered for this measure.
Dependent Variables
A set of overall eight performance measures were used to assess Post-interruption sequence errors
the impact of the acronym on different aspects of performance This measure included the proportion of sequence errors (i.e.,
including learning, performance during uninterrupted trials, and omitting or repeating a step) occurring at the different steps after
consequences of interruptions: an interruption.

Learning time Post-interruption non-sequence errors

This variable was used to assess a possible impact of the acronym This measure included the proportion of non-sequence errors
on the time needed to learn the correct sequence of choice rules (i.e., falsely responding to the correct step) occurring at the
of the primary task. It was defined as the time passed between different steps after an interruption.
the end of the first familiarization phase and the successful Interruption task performance
pass of the knowledge test, including the extra time needed if
Interruption task performance was measured through correct
the first trial of the knowledge test failed. Operationally it was
hits, when participants responded to the stimuli in the task
measured based on the time stamps sampled in the logfile of the
rightfully, and correct rejections, when participants correctly
experiment, indicating the end of the last 2-back practice trial and
did not respond to the stimuli presented, and it was expressed
the beginning of the final practice block, respectively. In order to
as a percentage.
be able to control for differences in pure reading speed, the time
In addition to these performance measures a number of
needed for reading the instructions in the familiarization phase,
further, mainly explorative variables were derived from the
defined by the time passed between the end of the first practice
structured post-experimental interview, including percentages
block of WORTKLAU task and beginning of the 2-back training
of different chunking strategies deliberately applied by the
trials, was also assessed via time stamps sampled in the logfiles
participants. Finally, a set of control variables used to identify
of the experiment.
possible basic differences between the experimental groups
Completion time included subjective ratings of performance in the primary
Completion time was defined as the mean of RTs needed to and in the interruption tasks, and selected items of the
complete the different steps of the primary WORTKLAU task demographic questionnaire, like age and subjective ratings of
in trials where no interruptions occurred. For the first step of typing proficiency.
each trial, RTs were defined as the time (in ms) passed from
the occurrence of the new task stimulus until the first response Results
provided. For all following steps, the RT was assessed by the A total of nine participants were excluded from further
length of inter-response interval (IRI, in ms), elapsed since the analyses for either systematic non-sequence errors in the K

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 November 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2522

Radović and Manzey Mnemonic Acronym and Task Performance

step (consonant-vowel) of the trial, for using non-mnemonic in the acronym group (M = 0.009, SE = 0.005), compared to
strategies to conduct the task (i.e., fingers pointing to the correct the no-acronym group (M = 0.023, SE = 0.005). However, the
answer at the keyboard during the interruption), or for inability proportions of sequence errors were very low in both groups and
to analyze all reaction times per situation due to the high number contrasting these means by a t-test the difference just failed to
of errors. Thus, the results presented in the following are based reach the usual level of significance, t(38.74) = 1.84, p = 0.074.
on the data of 33 participants in the acronym group and 32
Non-sequence errors
participants in the no-acronym group. The two groups neither
Non-sequence errors followed the same pattern as sequence
differed in age [M = 24.97 in the acronym and M = 25.38 in
errors, being lower in the acronym group (M = 0.012, SE = 0.015)
the no-acronym group, t(63) = 0.55, p = 0.58], nor in their
than in the no-acronym group (M = 0.017, SE = 0.035). However,
proficiency of typing skills [2.73 vs. 2.94, t(61.62) = 1.18, p = 0.24].
also this difference was too small to reach statistical significance,
In addition, the two groups also did not differ with respect of their
t(63) = 0.83, p = 0.41.
subjective rating of their performance in the primary task [2.94
vs. 3.03, t(64) = 0.64, p = 0.52] and in the interruption task [2.21 Performance in Interrupted Trials
vs. 2.34, t(64) = 0.88, p = 0.38]. An overview of performance measures calculated for each post-
With regard to RT measures in the uninterrupted trials, all interruption step of the primary task in the conditions with short
RT shorter than 500 ms or larger than 3 standard deviations and long interruptions is shown in Table 3.
(SD) from the mean, calculated for each step and each
participant, were excluded, resulting in excluding 0.03% RTs in Resumption times
the acronym group, and 0.05% in the no-acronym group. For The 2 (Group) × 2 (Length) × 5 (Position) ANOVA, revealed
post-interruption, RTs (between the re-occurrence of the primary significant main effects of length of interruption F(1,63) = 105.77,
task stimulus after interruption and the first response), also all p < 0.001, η2p = 0.63, and position of interruption, F(4,252) = 4.52,
times shorter than 500 ms were excluded, resulting in exclusion p = 0.002, η2p = 0.07, as well as a Group × Position interaction,
of 0.03% in the acronym and 0.04% in the no-acronym group. F(4,61) = 3.05, p < 0.018, η2p = 0.05. No other effects became
significant, all p > 0.10. As expected, long interruptions led to
Learning Time longer resumption times (M = 3651 ms, SE = 256) compared
Learning time to short ones (M = 1999 ms, SE = 145). The effects of group
All learning and reading times that were 3 SD above or below the and interruption position on the resumption time, including
group means were excluded from the analysis. This resulted in their interaction, are shown in Figure 2. As becomes evident,
the suspension of one participant due to a long reading time in resumption times were different, dependent on the position at
the acronym group, and three participants due to long learning which the interruptions occurred, with the shortest resumption
and reading times in the no-acronym group. In the acronym times in both groups when the interruption occurred at the
group, the mean learning time of the remaining participants was center position. However, this latter effect was somewhat more
910.50 s (SD = 145.42) compared to 1150.52 s (SD = 320.17) in pronounced in the acronym group than in the no-acronym
the no-acronym group. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) group. A planned t-test for paired samples contrasting the
with group as fixed factor and reading times as covariate, revealed resumption time for interruptions at the central position
a significant difference in learning times between the groups, (M = 1765 ms, SE = 277) and the mean of all other positions
F(1,58) = 13.53, p = 0.001, η2p = 0.19, whereas reading time was (M = 2710 ms, SE = 265) revealed a significant effect in the
not statistically significant, p = 0.21. acronym group, t(32) = 3.24, p = 0.003, whereas the same
comparison failed to become significant in the no-acronym group
Uninterrupted Primary-Task Performance (M = 2591 ms, SE = 325 vs. M = 2948, SE = 296), t(31) = 1.41,
A complete overview of the performance measures calculated for p = 0.17. However, also the marked increase of resumption
each step of the primary task in the uninterrupted condition, times for interruptions at position #5 (“L” step) compared to
together with the three derived overall performance scores on the center position, which is visible in the acronym group, but
trial level are shown in Table 2. absent in the no-acronym group, might have contributed to the
Completion time interaction effect.
Completion times for the different steps in the 12 WORTKLAU Post-interruption sequence errors
trials without interruptions were only descriptively faster in the The 2 (Group) × 2 (Length) × 5 (Position) ANOVA revealed
acronym (M = 2265 ms; SE = 124) than in the no-acronym group significant main effects of interruption length, F(1,63) = 110.73,
(M = 2291 ms; SE = 99). This corresponds to an average time p < 0.001, η2p = 0.64, and of position F(4,252) = 3.72,
needed to complete a whole WORTKLAU of 18.12 and 18.33 s,
p = 0.006, η2p = 0.06, as well as a significant Length × Position
respectively. A t-test contrasting the mean completion times
in both conditions did not reveal the difference as significant, interaction, F(4,252) = 2.97, p = 0.02, η2p = 0.04. No other
t(63) = 0.17, p = 0.87. effects became significant, all p > 0.06. In accordance with the
result obtained for resumption times, long interruptions led
Sequence errors to higher rates of sequence errors (M = 0.223, SE = 0.017)
As expected, the mean proportion of sequence errors committed compared to short ones (M = 0.068, SE = 0.007), and this
at the different steps of the WORTKLAU task was about half effect emerged independently of the acronym availability. The

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 November 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2522

Radović and Manzey Mnemonic Acronym and Task Performance

TABLE 2 | Means and standard errors (in brackets) of response times, proportion of sequence errors, and proportion of non-sequence errors at each step of the task in
uninterrupted trials. In addition, resulting mean completion times and mean overall proportion of sequence and of non-sequence errors are shown for both conditions at
the bottom of the table.

Acronym group No-acronym group

Step Response time Sequence errors Non-sequence errors Response time Sequence errors Non-sequence errors

W 2361 (166) 0.005 (0.006) 0.005 (0.004) 2405 (169) 0.012 (0.006) 0.011 (0.004)
O 2075 (152) 0.004 (0.002) 0.017 (0.016) 2135 (154) 0.001 (0.002) 0.032 (0.016)
R 1899 (178) 0.008 (0.006) 0.000 (0.000) 1874 (180) 0.011 (0.006) 0.000 (0.000)
T 2284 (187) 0.008 (0.008) 0.008 (0.005) 1987 (190) 0.017 (0.008) 0.009 (0.005)
K 2919 (161) 0.013 (0.006) 0.018 (0.010) 2765 (164) 0.016 (0.006) 0.039 (0.010)
L 2318 (229) 0.018 (0.008) 0.013 (0.006) 2603 (233) 0.038 (0.009) 0.010 (0.006)
A 2651 (196) 0.017 (0.017) 0.010 (0.005) 3117 (199) 0.057 (0.018) 0.006 (0.005)
U 1611 (88) 0.002 (0.012) 0.024 (0.010) 1445 (90) 0.034 (0.012) 0.032 (0.011)
Overall mean 2265 0.009 0.012 2291 0.023 0.017

mean rates of sequence errors reflecting the Length × Position Post-interruption non-sequence errors
interaction are shown in Figure 3. As becomes evident, The mean rate of post-interruption non-sequence errors was
in case of short interruptions, the rate of post-interruption generally low (<0.03) in both groups with only few variations
sequence errors was generally low and did not vary much induced by the experimental conditions. Thus, we assumed the
dependent on the position of the interruption. However, for variations reflected in this measure as just random and resigned
long interruptions, the rate of sequence errors differed across to analyze non-sequence errors statistically.
positions, with the lowest error rates after interruptions at
Interruption task performance
the positions #3 and #4 (center). A post hoc t-test for paired
Mean accuracy in the interruption task was ranging between 82
samples contrasting the mean error rate at the central position
and 100% (M = 93.95%, SE = 0.77) in the acronym group, and
with the mean of all other positions was conducted for the
between 68 and 99% (M = 91.78%, SE = 1.02) in the no-acronym
two interruption lengths separately. With short interruptions,
group. Despite the trend of somewhat lower performance in
no differences were found, t(64) = 1.34, p = 0.18, whereas
the no-acronym group, a t-test for independent samples showed
the analysis for long interruptions revealed less sequence
no significant differences in 2-back task between the groups,
errors at the central position (M = 0.170, SE = 0.024)
t(64) = 1.71, p = 0.09. In order to examine possible relationships
compared to the mean of all others (M = 0.240, SE = 0.018),
between the performance in the interruption task and the
t(64) = 2.72, p = 0.008. However, whether or not an acronym
post-interruption performance, a Pearson’s product-moment
was available to support the execution of the procedure did not
correlation coefficient was computed for each group separately.
make a difference.
In the acronym group, the accuracy in the interruption task
Previous studies have shown that interruptions may not only
did not correlate with the mean resumption time, r = 0.10,
raise the risk of sequence errors, but specifically sequence errors
p = 0.60, n = 33, nor with the mean proportion of post-
in form of repeating a step (in the terms used by Altmann
interruption sequence errors, r = 0.03, p = 0.86, n = 33.
et al., 2014 perseveration error) instead of skipping a step
However, in the no-acronym group, a significant correlation
(anticipation error), whereas the latter was found to be more
between the accuracy in the interruption task and the mean
characteristic in uninterrupted trials. Thus, we performed an
resumption time was found, r = 0.62, p < 0.001, n = 32.
exploratory post hoc analysis investigating whether the provision
That is, higher accuracy in the interruption task was related to
of a mnemonic acronym would make a difference in this respect.
longer resumption times after the interruption. No correlation
A 2 (Group) × 2 (Context: with vs. without interruption) × 2
between interruption task performance and mean proportion
(Error type: repeating vs. skipping) ANOVA only revealed a
of post-interruption sequence errors was found, r = −0.04,
significant main effect of context, F(1,63) = 135.51, p < 0.001,
p = 0.81, n = 32.
η2p = 0.68, and a Context × Error type interaction, F(1,64) = 5.74,
p = 0.02, η2p = 0.08. Overall, participants more often committed Post-experimental Interview
a sequence error after an interruption (M = 0.073, SE = 0.005) Use of chunking strategy
than in the uninterrupted trials (M = 0.010, SE = 0.002). In Chunking the task into subtasks in the learning and the execution
context of uninterrupted trials, participants were more likely phase was the common strategy in the acronym group, employed
to skip (M = 0.016, SE = 0.003) than to repeat a step by 79% participants: 33% of participants reported to have split
(M = 0.005, SE = 0.001), while an opposite tendency was found the task into two halves corresponding to the two words building
in the post-interruption context (M = 0.068, SE = 0.006 vs. the acronym (WORT – KLAU) and 39% of the sample split the
M = 0.079, SE = 0.008). Neither the main effect of group, nor acronym in three parts (WO – RT – KLAU), also based on the
any interaction effect of group and the other factors became semantic structure of the acronym, but including the word “wo”
significant (all p > 0.35). (engl. “where”) as a separate part. The remaining 6% reported

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 November 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2522

Radović and Manzey Mnemonic Acronym and Task Performance

Non-sequence error
to have used some other sort of chunking strategy (e.g., 4 × 2
TABLE 3 | Means and standard errors (in brackets) of post-interruption performance measures (response time, resumption time, proportion of sequence, and proportion of non-sequence errors) separately for each steps). On the other hand, only 34% of participants in the no-

0.000 (0.004)
0.005 (0.004)
0.034 (0.009)
0.005 (0.005)
0.011 (0.006)
0.000 (0.000)
0.008 (0.005)
0.026 (0.019)
0.000 (0.004)
0.018 (0.010)
acronym group employed task chunking as a strategy: 13% of
participants split the task in two halves, 10% of participants split
the task in 4 × 2 steps, and the rest (9%) used some other way of
chunking the task. On a descriptive level, shorter learning times
emerged in a subgroup of participants who employed some kind
of task chunking compared to a subgroup who did not, within
Sequence error

0.113 (0.024)
0.091 (0.018)
0.064 (0.019)
0.094 (0.025)
0.057 (0.019)
0.231 (0.038)
0.178 (0.030)
0.131 (0.034)
0.219 (0.047)
0.290 (0.043)
each experimental group (acronym group: 899.73 vs. 990.00 s;
no-acronym group: 988.44 vs. 1241.45 s).
No-acronym group

Ease of resumption
Participants also reported whether any interruption position
Resumption time

was particularly easy to resume. In the acronym group, 30% of

2364 (318)
2361 (279)
1637 (268)
2128 (376)
2123 (312)
4161 (466)
4484 (515)
3596 (447)
3541 (514)
3221 (543)
participants reported the central position as especially easy to
resume, and 36% of participants reported the central position
in addition to some other as being particularly easy. In contrast,
only 22 and 13% participants of the no-acronym group reported
the same benefit of these positions. The remaining 22 and 19%
of participants in the acronym and in the no-acronym group,
Response time

4376 (367)
4332 (309)
4468 (297)
4494 (436)
5483 (332)
6444 (530)
6431 (551)
6626 (491)
6122 (517)
6825 (619)

respectively, did not reported any position as specifically easy to

resume, and the rest of participants reported some other positions
or their combinations.

Discussion
Non-sequence error

The aims of the present research were to investigate effects of the

0.006 (0.004)
0.000 (0.004)
0.000 (0.009)
0.005 (0.005)
0.005 (0.010)
0.000 (0.000)
0.000 (0.005)
0.030 (0.018)
0.005 (0.004)
0.005 (0.010)

availability of a mnemonic acronym on learning and execution

of a procedural task, the resilience toward detrimental effects of
interruptions, and the impact of the structure of a mnemonic
acronym on the mental representation of the task.
Let us first consider the effects of learning and execution
of the eight-step procedure in the uninterrupted trials. Based
Sequence error
position of interruption and both interruption lengths in the acronym and no-acronym group.

0.056 (0.024)
0.040 (0.017)
0.040 (0.019)
0.073 (0.025)
0.057 (0.018)
0.278 (0.038)
0.162 (0.029)
0.207 (0.033)
0.291 (0.046)
0.244 (0.042)

on knowledge gained from research on memory for order

(Nelson and Archer, 1972; Morris and Cook, 1978), beneficial
Acronym group

effects of the mnemonic acronym were expected to emerge in

the time needed to learn the procedure. In accordance with
this hypothesis, the acronym group acquired the procedure
significantly faster than the no-acronym group. This finding is
Resumption time

in line with previous research on memory for order, showing

2451 (314)
1607 (275)
1237 (264)
2494 (370)
1587 (307)
3395 (459)
3429 (507)
2505 (440)
4391 (506)
3785 (535)

positive effects of mnemonic acronyms on memorization

of the order of verbal items (Morris and Cook, 1978).
However, no beneficial effects of the acronym were found
with respect to completion time and error rates, confirming
recent observations in the study of Hambrick et al. (2018).
Response time

Thus, our additional hypothesis that mnemonic acronyms might

4350 (332)
3892 (279)
4157 (269)
4812 (394)
4238 (300)
5294 (479)
5714 (499)
5425 (444)
6709 (468)
6436 (560)

also serve as process mnemonics that promote speed and

accuracy of task execution through strengthening associations
between the steps of the procedure (Malhotra, 1991) was
not supported by the data. Obviously, once the procedure
was learnt, no additional benefit of the cuing structure was
Position
(Step)

provided by the mnemonic acronym during the actual execution.

2 (R)

2 (R)
4 (K)

4 (K)
6 (A)

6 (A)
3 (T)

3 (T)
5 (L)

5 (L)

This suggests that mnemonic acronyms can serve well as

learning mnemonics supporting the establishment of declarative
knowledge concerning the set and sequence of rules of a
Length

sequential task. However, the transfer of this knowledge to the

Short

Long

actual active execution of the task (Kieras and Bovair, 1986)

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 November 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2522

Radović and Manzey Mnemonic Acronym and Task Performance

does not seem to be supported further by the availability of a EXPERIMENT 2

mnemonic acronym.
A second aim of the experiment addressed possible effects of The results of the first experiment provided some evidence that
mnemonic acronyms on the resilience of executing procedures the semantic structure of the mnemonic acronym affected the
toward interruptions. More specifically, we assumed that mental representation of the task. In order to investigate this
acronyms would generally improve the rehearsal of where possible effect further, we even emphasized the word boundary
in the sequence the interruption occurred and provide cues of the acronym WOTKLAU by introducing a hyphen between
for a better re-activation of the correct step to-be-performed the words WORT and KLAU of the acronym in the learning.
next after the interruption. The results did not support this We expected that such subtle, but salient manipulation would
assumption, as no differences between the groups were found be more effective than just the internal semantic structure of
in terms of overall resumption times and post-interruption the acronym to structure the mental representation of the task
sequence errors. This was also reflected in the subjective ratings in two halves, corresponding to the word boundary in the
of primary task and interruption task performance where central position of the acronym. During the execution of the
no significant differences emerged between the two groups. task, this should be reflected in a considerable higher resilience
However, the finding of the explorative analysis regarding the toward interruptions, specifically reflected in clearly reduced
different relationship between the accuracy in the interruption resumption times and sequence error rates for interruptions
task and resumption time in the two groups revealed a more taking place at the central position (i.e., before step “K”) than
subtle effect of the mnemonic acronym, which suggests that all other positions. However, learning times and performance at
the availability of a mnemonic might have facilitated the uninterrupted trials of the primary task are expected to remain
rehearsal of primary task goals during the interruption phase. unaffected and to replicate the results obtained in Experiment 1
Nonetheless, in the no-acronym group participants who were for the acronym group.
more accurate in the interruption task needed more time to
resume the primary task after the interruption and vice versa, Materials and Methods
and no such mutual dependence was found in the acronym Participants
group. This suggests that the mnemonic acronym could have Twenty university students (seven female; M = 25.65, SD = 3.31),
provided simple rehearsal cues, which helped to reduce possible ranging in age from 19 to 30, participated in the study.
interference effects between performing the 2-back task and Participants were recruited through a web portal of Technische
rehearsal of the primary task goal during the interruption phase, Universität Berlin. For participation in the experiment, a course
i.e., allowed for similar resumption performance independent credit or monetary compensation were offered.
of how much priority was given to the performance in the 2-
back task. Task and Procedure
Finally, we expected that the structure of the acronym would Tasks and procedure were the same as in the acronym group in
affect the mental representation of the task. More specifically, Experiment 1. The only difference regarded the learning phase of
we assumed that the word boundaries included in the acronym the experiment, where the acronym “WORTKLAU” was replaced
consisting of two words (WORT, KLAU) would lead to a with “WORT-KLAU.”
chunking of the procedure in at least two parts, based on
the meaning of the words within the acronym. This then Design
should be reflected in faster and more accurate post-interruption For investigating effects of the mnemonic acronym with
performance at the central step of the procedure compared to salient central position on resilience toward interruptions a 2
the others. No such effects were expected in the no-acronym (Length) × 5 (Position) within-subjects factorial design was
group. The results do not seem to be fully conclusive in this used. The first factor was defined as a within-subjects factor,
regard. Based on the post-experiment interview, the vast majority representing the duration of interruption (6 vs. 30 s). The second
participants (about 80%) in the acronym group deliberately used factor was another within-subjects factor and included five levels
the semantic structure of the acronym in one way or the other corresponding to the position in the sequence of response where
to divide the procedure in different chunks, whereas only a an interruption occurred.
minority of participants in the no-acronym group reported to
do so. Albeit this is in general accordance with our hypothesis, Dependent Variables
it was not as clearly reflected in the performance data. Here, Learning times, uninterrupted primary-task performance
a significant Group × Position effect emerged for resumption measures (completion time, sequence, and non-sequence errors),
times, but was not easy to explain since also marked differences at and post-interruption performance measures (resumption
positions other than the central position might have contributed times, post-interruption sequence and non-sequence errors, and
to this effect. Furthermore, no comparable effect was found for interruption task performance) were calculated in the same way
the post-interruption sequence errors. Thus, before accepting as in Experiment 1. In addition, the same explorative and control
the hypothesis that providing mnemonic acronyms as a tool to variables as in the first experiment were included, i.e., percentages
structure the mental representation of tasks, we conducted a of different chunking strategies deliberately applied, subjective
second experiment where we made the word boundary within the ratings of performance in the primary and in the interruption
acronym WORTKLAU even more salient. tasks, age, and subjective ratings of typing proficiency.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 November 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2522

Radović and Manzey Mnemonic Acronym and Task Performance

FIGURE 2 | Resumption times and standard errors of the acronym and no-acronym group for different interruption positions.

FIGURE 3 | Proportion of sequence errors and standard errors of the acronym and no-acronym groups together at different interruption positions.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 November 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2522

Radović and Manzey Mnemonic Acronym and Task Performance

Results As expected, long interruptions lead to more sequence errors

Due to a high number of errors, leading to missing resumption (M = 0.225, SE = 0.031) compared to short ones (M = 0.064,
times in certain conditions, one participant was excluded from SE = 0.014). Regarding the Position effect, it becomes evident
the further analyses. The mean subjective ratings of typing speed, from Figure 5 that, independent of the length of interruption the
primary task performance and interruption task performance of risk of sequence errors was lowest at the central positions with
the remaining participants were 2.74 (SE = 0.13), 3.0 (.13) and actually perfect performance after short interruptions. This was
2.21 (.14), and, thus, replicated the mean ratings of the acronym confirmed by a post hoc t-test for paired samples, contrasting
group of the first experiment almost exactly (2.73; 2.94; 2.21, mean sequence errors after interruptions at the central position
respectively). Applying the same criteria for outlier correction with the mean errors after interruptions at other positions
as in Experiment 1, in total 0.02% single values were excluded which became significant for both interruption lengths: short
from RTs in uninterrupted trials, and 0.02% values from the interruptions, t(18) = 4.33, p < 0.001, and long interruptions,
post-interruption RTs. t(18) = 3.93, p = 0.001. However, for short interruptions also the
risk of sequence errors after interruptions at the second position
Learning Time and Uninterrupted Primary-Task was almost zero (M = 0.009, SE = 0.009), and also this mean
Performance differed significantly from the means of positions #2, and #6,
Learning time, completion time, sequence, and non-sequence all p < 0.003.
errors
Post-interruption non-sequence errors
Because no experimental manipulation in this experiment
Mean error rates of post-interruption non-sequence
addressed learning time and the primary task performance in
errors were generally low (<0.06%) and were not further
uninterrupted trials, only descriptive statistics are reported. Mean
analyzed statistically.
learning time was 999.21 s (SE = 46.28), which was close to the
mean learning time needed in the acronym group of Experiment Interruption task performance
1 (910.50 s). Similarly, also the baseline performance scores Mean accuracy in the interruption task was ranging between
achieved in the primary task in uninterrupted trials more or 82 and 99% (M = 92.38%, SE = 1.05). Corresponding to the
less replicated those of Experiment 1. The mean completion results of the acronym group in Experiment 1, the accuracy
time per step in uninterrupted trials was 2716 ms (SE = 215) in the interruption task did neither correlate with the mean
corresponding to the average time needed to complete a whole of resumption times, r = 0.22, p = 0.37, n = 19, nor with the
WORT-KLAU trial of 21.73 s (SE = 1.72). The mean errors rates mean proportion of post-interruption sequence errors, r = −0.18,
were 0.014 (SE = 0.004) for sequence errors and 0.011 (SE = 0.002) p = 0.46, n = 19.
for non-sequence errors.
Post-experimental Interview
Performance in Interrupted Trials Use of chunking strategy
Resumption times Chunking the task into halves as a deliberately applied
The effects of interruptions on mean resumption times are strategy during the learning and the execution phase, directly
shown in Figure 4. A 2 (Length) × 5 (Position) ANOVA corresponding to the emphasized semantic structure of the
for repeated measures only revealed the two main effects as primary task, was explicitly reported by 42% of the participants.
significant, Length: F(1,18) = 32.27, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.64; and Only one participant reported some other chunking pattern
Position: F(4,72) = 3.27, p = 0.016, η2p = 0.15. As expected and (3+5). However, 53% of the participants did not report a use
as becomes evident from Figure 4, long interruptions led to of any chunking strategy. In a post hoc analysis, t-test for
considerably longer resumption times (M = 4185 ms, SE = 472) independent samples revealed no differences in learning times
than short ones (M = 2089 ms, SE = 250). In addition, resumption between the subgroup of participants who used some kind of
times differed across positions with quickest resumptions after chunking strategy (1165.11 s) and participants who did not
interruptions at the central position. A t-test for paired samples chunk the task (1266.80 s). However, the trend observed was
contrasting the mean resumption time at the central position in accordance with the finding in Experiment 1, where the
(M = 2041 ms, SE = 448) with the mean of all other positions subgroup who employed chunking was faster in learning than the
(M = 3222 ms, SE = 343), revealed this difference as significant, subgroup who did not.
t(18) = 3.21, p = 0.005.
Ease of resumption
Post-interruption sequence errors Thirty nine % of the participants reported the central position
Effects of Length and Position of interruptions on post- as especially easy to resume after an interruption, and 33% of
interruption sequence errors are shown in Figure 5. As becomes participants reported the central position in addition to some
evident, again both factors obviously affected the risk to commit other. In contrast, only 28% of participants reported that no
such errors, yet in a somewhat different way across positions, position was particularly easy to resume.
dependent on the length of interruption. The ANOVA revealed
significant main effects of Length F(1,18) = 42.12, p < 0.001, Discussion
η2p = 0.70, and Position F(4,72) = 7.67, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.30, as The main objective of Experiment 2 was to examine the effects of
well as an interaction effect F(4,15) = 2.80, p = 0.032, η2p = 0.13. a more salient semantic structuring of the mnemonic acronym

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 November 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2522

Radović and Manzey Mnemonic Acronym and Task Performance

FIGURE 4 | Resumption times and standard errors for short and long interruption length at different interruption positions.

FIGURE 5 | Proportion of sequence errors and standard errors for short and long interruption length at different interruption positions.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 13 November 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2522

Radović and Manzey Mnemonic Acronym and Task Performance

on the mental representation of the sequential WORTKLAU Morris and Cook, 1978), which was the key property of the
task. Compared to the acronym used in the first experiment, task in our experiment. The effects suggest that the knowledge
the two-word structure of the acronym was made more salient gained from serial verbal learning can be transferred directly to
by simply including a hyphen at the boundary between the the learning of sequential procedural tasks, involving different
two words WORT and KLAU. It was expected that this steps to be performed in prescribed order. However, at least
would lead to a structured mental representation of the partially, the positive effects may also be explained by the
WORTKLAU task, consisting of two parts, represented by the structure of the complex WORTKLAU acronym, which could
word. This, in turn, was expected to make the task more have enhanced the chunking of the task during learning and
resilient toward interruptions at the central position, reflected execution. Within each experimental group in both experiments,
in shorter resumption times and less sequence errors when the subgroup that chunked the task was somewhat faster in
resuming the primary task after interruptions at the central learning compared to the subgroup that did not report such
position, compared to interruption at other steps. The obtained strategy. Although this difference only emerged descriptively
results provide support for this hypothesis. Independent of the and should not be overemphasized, it at least suggests that
length of interruptions, and more clearly visible than in the learning times in the acronym group did not only benefit
first experiment, the primary task was resumed faster and more from the support of the acronym as cue for coding the
accurately after the interruptions at the central compared to the order and content of choice rules, but also from its structure
mean of all other positions. This effect was most marked for long supporting a hierarchical task organization. In addition, it
interruptions, where the mean rate of post-interruption sequence cannot be excluded that also indirect benefits of the mnemonic
errors at the central position dropped to only 8%. For short acronyms, e.g., increase motivation to work on the task (Stalder,
interruptions, the rates of post-interruption sequence errors were 2005), might have contributed to the faster learning times in
relatively low anyway, but actually zero for all participants at the acronym group.
the central position. Taken together, these results confirm the A more advanced assumption involved the hypothesis that
findings obtained in the acronym group of Experiment 1, which the mnemonic acronym might also serve as a process mnemonic
already suggested that the semantic structure of an acronym improving the speed and accuracy of a procedural task execution.
provided as a mnemonic for a sequential task might also affect the That is, we expected that the mnemonic acronym would
structure of mental representation of the task. The fact that this provide a cuing structure, which strengthened the associations
effect was more strongly reflected in the performance measures between successive steps of the task (Malhotra, 1991). In
than in the subjective reports of the participants concerning the that case, a faster and more accurate execution of the task
use of a deliberately chosen strategy suggest that it can occur sequence would be enabled. This expectation was mainly based
without becoming subjectively aware. on observational and field studies reporting the benefits of
mnemonic acronyms for supporting learning, teaching, and
executing of procedures (Cook, 1989; Stalder, 2005; Bortle,
GENERAL DISCUSSION 2010). However, the data of the two experiments do not
support this assumption. In neither experiment, the groups
The aim of the present study was to examine the potential performing the primary task with support of the acronym did
of a mnemonic acronym to serve as a learning mnemonic outperform the control group of Experiment 1 when performing
for a sequential procedural task, and to serve as a process the task in uninterrupted trials, i.e., both groups achieved
mnemonic during the task execution. Moreover, the goal was the same levels of speed and accuracy. This suggests that
to investigate the potential of a mnemonic acronym to improve the mnemonic acronym did only support the establishment
overall resilience toward interruptions by providing an easily of declarative knowledge in long-term memory, but failed
accessible cue for rehearsal, as well as to improve resilience to further support the transfer of the memorized sequence
toward interruptions at certain steps by providing a structure to of rules in the sequence of response selections and actions
the mental representation on the procedure. To our knowledge, required for the actual execution (Kieras and Bovair, 1986).
this is the first study that has addressed these questions directly in Theoretically, the execution of such sequential, procedural
a systematic way. task is proposed to rely on mechanisms involved in order
The results of the two experiments provide direct empirical memory and serial recall (single mechanism theories, e.g.,
evidence for the beneficial effects of a mnemonic acronym Burgess and Hitch, 1999; Brown et al., 2000; Botvinick and
as a support tool for learning. The two groups provided Plaut, 2006) or on a specific placekeeping ability involving
with different versions of the WORTKLAU acronym in the two mechanisms – episodic and semantic memory (Trafton
learning phase needed approximately 5 min less (on average) et al., 2011; Hambrick and Altmann, 2015). Both groups
to learn the rules of the sequential procedure, compared to of theories propose chain associations between the steps,
the participants of Experiment 1 who learned the sequence where the execution of one step serves as a prime for the
without the help of an acronym. These effects are in line activation and execution of following steps. The results of
with early studies on mnemonic acronyms that showed their the present study suggest that, once a sequential procedural
positive effects in learning and reproduction of verbal material task is learnt, with or without the support of an acronym,
(e.g., Higbee, 2001; Stalder, 2005), especially when the order the sequential associations between successive steps are already
of items needs to be memorized (Nelson and Archer, 1972; strong enough to serve this assumed cueing and priming

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 14 November 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2522

Radović and Manzey Mnemonic Acronym and Task Performance

mechanisms sufficiently, rendering all additional effects of an interruptions being less detrimental for performance, if they
acronym negligible. occurred between subtasks compared to within subtasks.
A third set of assumptions concerned the possible effects These results were explained by reduced mental workload at
of a mnemonic acronym to improve the resilience of a subtask boundaries, resulting from previous subtask completion
procedural task toward interruptions and to affect the structure and not yet fully processing the incoming one (Miyata and
of mental representation of the task. A general higher resilience Norman, 1986; Wickens, 2002). Based on our research, it appears
toward interruptions was expected based on the assumption that mnemonic acronyms can induce a hierarchical mental
that rehearsal of a pending goal during the interruption task organization of a complex procedural task with sequential
would be enhanced by a simple internal cue provided by the constraints in different subtasks even if the task per se does
acronym, leading to elevated activation of the primary task not have such structure. However, considering the effect
goal during the interruption (Altmann and Trafton, 2002). In of this hierarchical organization on the resilience toward
addition, we assumed that the acronym might provide effective interruptions one should keep in mind that these effects were
cues for reorienting and re-activation the correct step of the considerably smaller compared to the impact of interruption
primary task after an interruption. However, no differences length. Whereas the observed sizes of the effects of position
in post-interruption measures, neither resumption times nor of interruptions ranged between 0.06 and 0.3 across the two
sequence errors, were found between the acronym and the no- experiments, the different lengths of interruptions produced
acronym group of Experiment 1. This suggests that a mnemonic considerable larger effects (0.63–0.70), which could not be
acronym does not contribute to a better prevention of goal completely attenuated by help of the mnemonic in either of the
decay during the interruption phase, nor does it seem to be two experiments.
especially helpful as a cue for reactivating the primary task The interruptions in our experiments primarily were used
goal after the interruption. However, the observation that the to specifically assess the possible effects of mnemonic acronyms
performance in the interruption task and the time needed on the resilience of a procedural task toward interruptions.
to resume the primary task were positively correlated across Apart from this, our results also contribute to interruption
participants in the no-acronym (Experiment 1), but not across research in general. Independent of whether or not the mnemonic
participants of the two acronym groups (Experiments 1, 2) acronym was available, most of the performance consequences
suggests that the mnemonic acronym nevertheless affected the of interruptions previously described from research with the
rehearsal processes in the interruption phase in some way. UNRAVEL tasks (Altmann et al., 2014, 2017) were confirmed
More specifically, it enabled participants to better uncouple again in our experiments. That is, resumption times and
the processes involved in the 2-back task from rehearsing proportion of post-interruption sequence errors increased
the relevant primary task goals. Why such effect would not depending on the length of interruptions, with mean rates
lead to better resumption performance is difficult to explain, of sequence errors after short and long interruptions closely
though, and the interpretation should be considered with some resembling the ones reported by Altmann et al. (2014, 2017).
caution, given that the correlations were based on relatively In addition, the somewhat higher prevalence of erroneous
small number of participants in the different groups and a repetition of steps (perseveration errors) versus skipping of steps
restricted variance of interruption task performance especially in (anticipation errors) after interrupted compared to uninterrupted
the two acronym groups. steps, previously reported by Altmann et al. (2014) is replicated
Even more specific effects on the resilience toward in our research. This provides converging evidence for these
interruptions were expected due to the potential impact of phenomena to cross-validate the previous findings obtained in
the mnemonic acronym on the organization of the mental the UNRAVEL task using our modified German adaptation
representation of a procedural task established during learning. combined with a different interruption task.
Specifically, it was assumed that the semantic structure of Altogether, to our knowledge, the current study is one of
an acronym would guide a sort of hierarchical mental task the first attempts to examine extensively effects of mnemonic
representation, which in turn would make a procedural task acronym on learning and execution of procedural task with
more resilient toward interruption at task steps representing sequential constraints, as well as resilience toward interruptions
a boundary in the semantic structure of the acronym. This in an experimental setting. The results provide support for
assumption was supported by the data of both experiments. implementing mnemonic acronyms in the learning phase of a
In the first experiment, post-interruption performance in procedural task, as they can promote faster learning. However,
terms of resumption times was better when the interruption once the task is learnt, no additional benefit of the acronym
was placed between the two separate words building the on plain execution of the task would be expected. Furthermore,
acronym, compared to interruptions at other steps. When it seems that a mnemonic acronym can also affect the mental
the boundary between the acronym words were made even representation of a serial task by dividing it in subtasks, which
more salient (Experiment 2), the effect was replicated in both in turn may lead to a higher resilience toward interruptions
resumption times and post-interruption sequence errors. This at subtask borders. Thus, overall, the results provide evidence
finding is in line with previous studies, which examined the of limited and specific advantages of mnemonic acronyms in
relationship between the hierarchical structure of a task and context of procedural tasks, which should be further consolidated
interruption effects (Monk et al., 2002, 2004; Botvinick and in future research. Moreover, the finding that a hierarchically
Bylsma, 2005; Bailey and Konstan, 2006). They usually found organized mental representation of a procedural task can help

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 15 November 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2522

Radović and Manzey Mnemonic Acronym and Task Performance

to make this task more resilient toward interruptions at DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
certain positions also raises the question about other ways
to achieve such organization. Besides providing mnemonic The datasets generated for this study are available on request to
acronyms, for example, also a segmented learning of a the corresponding author.
procedure by organizing the steps in pairs or subgroups, or
a temporal grouping similar to the one applied in previous
research on memory for serial order (e.g., Parmentier and ETHICS STATEMENT
Maybery, 2008) might provide options to yield a hierarchical
representation of a task and might be considered in The studies involving human participants were reviewed
future research. and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute
Limitations of the current study involve the typical for Psychology and Ergonomics, Technische Universtät
limitations of laboratory studies. Our participants were university Berlin [Die Ethik-Kommission des Instituts für Psychologie
students, who might be considered to represent an already und Arbeitswissenschaft (IPA) der TU Berlin]. The
highly selected population with respect to the level of their patients/participants provided their written informed consent
cognitive capabilities. However, in the context of the current to participate in this study.
study this might have made it rather more difficult to
find beneficial effects of a mnemonic acronym. In addition,
the WORTKLAU task used in our research to simulate a AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
procedural task with sequential constraints certainly is an
abstract laboratory task. We just assume that the cognitive TR and DM conceived the idea, planned the experiments,
demands of this task closely resemble the ones needed in and contributed to the analysis of the results and writing
many procedural tasks in everyday environments and applied of the manuscript.
settings. Nevertheless, the consequences of committing errors
in task execution were not quite comparable to typical tasks
outside the laboratory. Thus, further research should show FUNDING
whether the effects found in this research can be replicated
with more representative samples and more realistic tasks in This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
relevant field settings. (Grant Number: MA 3759/5-1).

REFERENCES Botvinick, M. M., and Bylsma, L. M. (2005). Distraction and action slips
in an everyday task: evidence for a dynamic representation of task
Au, H. (2005). “Line pilot performance of memory items,” in Proceedings of the context. Psychonom. Bull. Rev. 12, 1011–1017. doi: 10.3758/bf0320
International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, OH 6436
Altmann, E. M., and Trafton, J. G. (2002). Memory for goals: an activation- Botvinick, M. M., and Plaut, D. C. (2006). Short-term memory for serial order:
based model. Cogn. Sci. 26, 39–83. doi: 10.1016/s0364-0213(01)00 a recurrent neural network model. Psychol. Rev. 113:201. doi: 10.1037/0033-
058-1 295x.113.2.201
Altmann, E. M., Trafton, J. G., and Hambrick, D. Z. (2014). Momentary Bower, G. H. (1970). Organizational factors in memory. Cogn. Psychol. 1, 18–46.
interruptions can derail the train of thought. J. Exp. Psychol. 143:215. doi: doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(70)90003-4
10.1037/a0030986 Brown, G. D., Preece, T., and Hulme, C. (2000). Oscillator-based memory for serial
Altmann, E. M., and Trafton, J. G. (2015). Brief lags in interrupted sequential order. Psychol. Rev. 107:127. doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.107.1.127
performance: evaluating a model and model evaluation method. Int. J. Hu. Burgess, N., and Hitch, G. J. (1999). Memory for serial order: a network model of
Comput. Stud. 79, 51–65. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.12.007 the phonological loop and its timing. Psychol. Rev. 106:551. doi: 10.1037//0033-
Altmann, E. M., Trafton, J. G., and Hambrick, D. Z. (2017). Effects of interruption 295x.106.3.551
length on procedural errors. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 23:216. doi: 10.1037/ Cades, D. M., Boehm-Davis, D. A. B., Trafton, J. G., and Monk, C. A. (2007). “Does
xap0000117 the difficulty of an interruption affect our ability to resume?,” in Proceedings of
Bailey, B. P., and Konstan, J. A. (2006). On the need for attention-aware systems: the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Los Angeles, CA.
measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective Carlson, R. A., and Cassenti, D. N. (2004). Intentional control of event
state. Comput. Hum. Behav. 22, 685–708. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2005.12.009 counting. J. Exp. Psychol. 30:1235. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.
Bellezza, F. S. (1981). Mnemonic devices: classification, characteristics, and criteria. 1235
Rev. Educ. Res. 51, 247–275. doi: 10.3102/00346543051002247 Carlson, L., Zimmer, J. W., and Glover, J. A. (1981). First-letter mnemonics: DAM
Blick, K. A., Buonassissi, J. V., and Boltwood, C. E. (1972). Mnemonic techniques (don’t aid memory). J. Gen. Psychol. 104, 287–292. doi: 10.1080/00221309.1981.
used by college students in serial learning. Psychol. Rep. 31, 983–986. doi: 9921047
10.2466/pr0.1972.31.3.983 Cook, N. M. (1989). The applicability of verbal mnemonics for different
Blick, K. A., and Waite, C. J. (1971). A survey of mnemonic techniques used by populations: a review. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 3, 3–22. doi: 10.1002/acp.
college students in free-recall learning. Psychol. Rep. 29, 76–78. doi: 10.2466/ 2350030103
pr0.1971.29.1.76 Dismukes, R. K., Young, G. E., Sumwalt, R. L. III., and Null, C. H. (1998).
Boltwood, C. E., and Blick, K. A. (1970). The delineation and application of three Cockpit interruptions and distractions: effective management requires a careful
mnemonic techniques. Psychonom. Sci. 20, 339–341. doi: 10.3758/bf03335678 balancing act. Nat. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med. 68, 18–21
Bortle, C. D. (2010). The Role of Mnemonic Acronyms in Clinical Emergency Drews, F. A. (2007). The frequency and impact of task interruptions in the ICU. in
Medicine: a Grounded Theory Study. Doctoral thesis, University of Phoenix, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Los
Phoenix, AZ. Angeles, CA.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 16 November 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2522

Radović and Manzey Mnemonic Acronym and Task Performance

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. -G., and Buchner, A. (2007). G∗ Power 3: a flexible Miller, S. P., and Mercer, C. D. (1993). Mnemonics: enhancing the math
statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical performance of students with learning difficulties. Interv. Sch. Clinic 29, 78–82.
sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 39, 175–191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 doi: 10.1177/105345129302900204
Gruneberg, M. M. (1973). The role of memorization techniques in finals Monk, C. A., Boehm-Davis, D. A., and Trafton, J. G. (2002). “The attentional costs
examination preparation–a study of psychology students. Educ. Res. 15, 134– of interrupting task performance at various stages,” in Proceedings of the Human
139. doi: 10.1080/0013188730150209 Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Los Angeles, CA.
Hambrick, D. Z., and Altmann, E. M. (2015). The role of placekeeping ability in Monk, C. A., Trafton, J. G., and Boehm-Davis, D. A. (2008). The effect of
fluid intelligence. Psychonom. Bull. Rev. 22, 1104–1110. doi: 10.3758/s13423- interruption duration and demand on resuming suspended goals. J. Exp.
014-0764-5 Psychol. 14:299. doi: 10.1037/a0014402
Hambrick, D. Z., Altmann, E. M., and Burgoyne, A. P. (2018). A knowledge Monk, C. A., Boehm-Davis, D. A., Mason, G., and Trafton, J. G. (2004). Recovering
activation approach to testing the circumvention-of-limits hypothesis. Am. J. from interruptions: implications for driver distraction research. Hum. Factors
Psychol. 131, 307–321. 46, 650–663. doi: 10.1518/hfes.46.4.650.56816
Henson, R. N. (1998). Short-term memory for serial order: the start-end model. Moore, M. E., and Ross, B. M. (1963). Context effects in running memory. Psychol.
Cognit. Psychol. 36, 73–137. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1998.0685 Rep. 12, 451–465. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1963.12.2.451
Higbee, K. L. (1987). “Process mnemonics: Principles, prospects, and problems,” Morris, P. E., and Cook, N. (1978). When do first letter mnemonics aid recall? Br.
in Imagery and Related Mnemonic Processes, M. A. McDaniel, M. Pressley, J. Educ. Psychol. 48, 22–28. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1978.tb02366.x
(Springer: New York, NY), 407–427. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-4676-3_19 Miyata, Y., and Norman, D. A. (1986). Psychological issues in support of multiple
Higbee, K. L. (2001). Your Memory: How it Works and How to Improve it. activities. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL.
Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. Nelson, D. L., and Archer, C. S. (1972). The first letter mnemonic. J. Educ. Psychol.
Hodgetts, H. M., and Jones, D. M. (2006). interruption of the tower of london 63:482. doi: 10.1037/h0033131
task: support for a goal-activation approach. J. Exp. Psychol. 135:103. doi: Parmentier, F. B., and Maybery, M. T. (2008). Equivalent effects of grouping by
10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.103 time, voice, and location on response timing in verbal serial memory. J. Exp.
Hörmann, H. J. (1994). “FOR-DEC-A prescriptive model for aeronautical decision- Psychol. 34:1349. doi: 10.1037/a0013258
making,” in Proceedings of the 21. WEAAP-Conference, Dublin. Scott-Cawiezell, J., Pepper, G. A., Madsen, R. W., Petroski, G., Vogelsmeier, A., and
Hunt, P. (1988). Safety in aviation. Perfusion 3, 83–96. Zellmer, D. (2007). Nursing home error and level of staff credentials. Clin. Nurs.
Hurlstone, M. J., Hitch, G. J., and Baddeley, A. D. (2014). Memory for serial order Res. 16, 72–78. doi: 10.1177/1054773806295241
across domains: an overview of the literature and directions for future research. Stalder, D. R. (2005). Learning and motivational benefits of acronym use
Psychol. Bull. 140:339. doi: 10.1037/a0034221 in introductory psychology. Teach. Psychol. 32, 222–228. doi: 10.1207/
Latorella, K. A. (1996). “Investigating interruptions: an example from the s15328023top3204_3
flightdeck,” in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Trafton, J. G., Altmann, E. M., and Ratwani, R. M. (2011). A memory for goals
Annual. Los Angeles, CA model of sequence errors. Cogn. Syst. Res. 12, 134–143. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsys.
Latorella K. A. (1999). Investigating Interruptions: Implications for Flightdeck 2010.07.010
Performance. (NASA/TM-1999-209707). Hampton: NASA Langley Research Trafton, J. G., and Monk, C. A. (2007). Task interruptions. Rev. Hum. Factors
Center. Ergonom. 3, 111–126.
Loukopoulos, L. D., Dismukes, R. K., and Barshi, I. (2001). “Cockpit interruptions Westbrook, J., Woods, A., Rob, M., Dunsmuir, W. T., and Day, R. O. (2010).
and distractions: a line observation study,” in Proceedings of the 11th Association of interruptions with an increased risk and severity of medication
International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH. administration errors. Arch. Intern. Med. 170, 683–690.
Loukopoulos, L. D., Dismukes, R. K., and Barshi, I. (2003). “Concurrent task Wickens, C. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction.
demands in the cockpit: challenges and vulnerabilities in routine flight Theor. Issues Ergonom. Sci. 3, 159–177. doi: 10.1080/1463922021012
operations,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation 3806
Psychology. Dayton, OH.
Kieras, D. E., and Bovair, S. (1986). The acquisition of procedures from text: a Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
production-system analysis of transfer of training. J. Mem. Lang. 25, 507–524 absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
doi: 10.1016/0749-596x(86)90008-2 potential conflict of interest.
Malhotra, N. K. (1991). Mnemonics in marketing: a pedagogical tool. J. Acad.
Market. Sci. 19, 141–149. doi: 10.1007/bf02726006 Copyright © 2019 Radović and Manzey. This is an open-access article distributed
Manalo, E. (2002). Uses of mnemonics in educational settings: a brief review of under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
selected research. Psychologia 45, 69–79. doi: 10.2117/psysoc.2002.69 distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication
our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 63, 81–97. doi: 10.1037/ in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use,
h0043158 distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 17 November 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2522