Interruptions can disrupt coordination and reduce decision accuracy in complex systems. Recovery from interruptions is often affected by the difficulty of the task at hand, making it critical to design support tools to support users. One such tool is gaze sharing—visualizing a teammate’s gaze through on the other teammate’s screen. This study examines the role of user-controlled gaze sharing in supporting interruption recovery across task complexities. Eighty-four participants (42 teams) completed simulated UAV command and control tasks under three gaze sharing conditions—off, on, and user-controlled toggle—and two task complexity levels—simple and complex. Results revealed that gaze sharing improved post-interruption decision accuracy, with user-controlled gaze sharing providing the greatest performance benefit in complex tasks. These findings suggest that adaptive gaze sharing mechanisms can support effective coordination following interruptions. The study advances understanding of how gaze-based tools can inform the design of collaborative technologies for interruption-heavy team environments.
AkkilD.JamesJ. M.IsokoskiP.KangasJ. (2016). GazeTorch: Enabling gaze awareness in collaborative physical tasks. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1151–1158). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858114
2.
AltmannE. M.TraftonJ. G.HambrickD. Z. (2014). Momentary interruptions can derail the train of thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030986
3.
AtwehJ. A.HazimehR.RiggsS. L. (2023a). Can real-time gaze sharing help team collaboration? A preliminary examination of its effectiveness with pairs. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 67(1), 716–721. https://doi.org/10.1177/2169230123096745
4.
AtwehJ. A.HayekJ. A.RiggsS. L. (2023b). Quantifying visual attention of teams during workload transitions using AOI-based cross-recurrence metrics. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 67(1), 1882–1887. https://doi.org/10.1177/2169230123096905
5.
AtwehJ. A.MoacdiehN. M.RiggsS. L. (2022). Identifying individual-, team-, and organizational-level factors that affect team performance in complex domains based on recent literature. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 66(1), 1795–1799. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181322661394
6.
AtwehJ. A.RiggsS. L. (2024a). Gaze sharing, a double-edged sword: Examining the effect of real-time gaze sharing visualizations on team performance and situation awareness. Human Factors, 67(3), 196–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208231218242
7.
AtwehJ. A.RiggsS. L. (2024b). ScanMatch versus MultiMatch: A comparison of the sensitivity of scanpath similarity metrics to changes in workload. In 2024 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (SIEDS). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIEDS59161.2024.10360534
8.
AtwehJ.RiggsS. (2025a). Quantifying collaborative strategies and identifying performance breakdowns of UAV C2 teams using multidimensional cross-recurrence quantification analysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5119475
9.
AtwehJ.RiggsS. (2025b). Predicting mental demand of teammates using eye tracking metrics: A machine learning approach. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (ETRA). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3663903.3663917
10.
AtwehJ. A.RiggsS. L. (2025c). Display design shapes how eye tracking, workload, and situation awareness predict team performance. In 2025 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (SIEDS). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIEDS59161.2025.10450538
11.
AtwehJ. A.TabbaraI.NasrallahG.RiggsS. L. (2024). Reducing barriers in analyzing eye tracking data: The development of a GUI to preprocess eye tracking data. In 2024 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (SIEDS) (pp. 286–291). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIEDS59161.2024.10360621
12.
DarbarR.SantuzH.TalyA.BaadenM. (2024, December). GazeMolVR: Sharing eye-gaze cues in a collaborative VR environment for molecular visualization. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (pp. 7–23). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3643834.3643840
13.
de ConingC. (2016). From peacebuilding to sustaining peace: Implications of complexity for resilience and sustainability. Resilience, 4(3), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/21693293.2016.1153773
14.
DuS.KeilM.MathiassenL.ShenY.TiwanaA. (2007). Attention-shaping tools, expertise, and perceived control in IT project risk assessment. Decision Support Systems, 43(1), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.10.002
15.
FeitshansG.RoweA.DavisJ.HollandM.BergerL. (2008, August18). Vigilant Spirit Control Station (VSCS): The face of COUNTER. Paper presented at the AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, Honolulu, HI. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2008-6635
16.
GuptaK.LeeG. A.BillinghurstM. (2016). Do You see what i see? The effect of gaze tracking on task space remote collaboration. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22, 2413–2422. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2016.2593778
17.
KatidiotiI.BorstJ. P.Bierens de HaanD. J.PeppingT.van VugtM. K.TaatgenN. A. (2016). Interrupted by your pupil: An interruption management system based on pupil dilation. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2016.1232227
18.
LeeG.KimS.LeeY.DeyA.PiumsomboonT.NormanM.BillinghurstM. (2017). Improving collaboration in augmented video conference using mutually shared gaze. In International Conference on Artificial Reality and Telexistence and Eurographics Symposium on Virtual Environments (ICAT-EGVE 2017) (pp. 115–122). https://doi.org/10.2312/egve.20171344
19.
McCarleyJ. S.LeggettN.EnrightA. (2021). Shared gaze fails to improve team visual monitoring. Human Factors, 63(4), 696–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820959604
20.
MiltonJ. M.GillespieB.ÅbergD.Erichsen AnderssonA.OxelmarkL. (2023). Interprofessional teamwork before and after organizational change in a tertiary emergency department: An observational study. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 37(2), 300–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2022.2138185
21.
MonkC. A.TraftonJ. G.Boehm-DavisD. A. (2008). The effect of interruption duration and demand on resuming suspended goals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(4), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014402
22.
NewnJ.VellosoE.AllisonF.AbdelrahmanY.VetereF. (2017, October). Evaluating real-time gaze representations to infer intentions in competitive turn-based strategy games. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’17) (pp. 541–552). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3116595.3116617
23.
SasangoharF.ScottS. D.CummingsM. L. (2014). Supervisory-level interruption recovery in time-critical control tasks. Applied Ergonomics, 45(4), 1148–1156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.01.005
24.
SungG.FengT.SchneiderB. (2021). Learners learn more and instructors track better with real-time gaze sharing. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449140
25.
TraftonJ. G.AltmannE. M.BrockD. P.MintzF. E. (2003). Preparing to resume an interrupted task: Effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(5), 583–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00023-5
26.
ZhangY.PfeufferK.ChongM. K.AlexanderJ.BullingA.GellersenH. (2017). Look together: Using gaze for assisting co-located collaborative search. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 21(1), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-016-0985-8
27.
ZhouK.WangC.XieS.ZhouY.ZhangX.WangY.TangH. (2024). Effect of task interruption on the situation awareness of air traffic controllers. PLOS ONE, 19(11), e0314183. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314183
