Measuring and Mitigating the Costs of Attentional Switches in Active Network Monitoring for Cybersecurity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors seek to characterize the behavioral costs of attentional switches between points in a network map and assess the efficacy of interventions intended to reduce those costs. BACKGROUND: Cybersecurity network operators are tasked with determining an appropriate attentional allocation scheme given the state of the network, which requires repeated attentional switches. These attentional switches may result in temporal performance decrements, during which operators disengage from one attentional fixation point and engage with another. METHOD: We ran two experiments where participants identified a chain of malicious emails within a network. All interactions with the system were logged and analyzed to determine if users experienced disengagement and engagement delays. RESULTS: Both experiments revealed significant costs from attentional switches before (i.e., disengagement) and after (i.e., engagement) participants navigated to a new area in the network. In our second experiment, we found that interventions aimed at contextualizing navigation actions lessened both disengagement and engagement delays. CONCLUSION: Attentional switches are detrimental to operator performance. Their costs can be reduced by design features that contextualize navigations through an interface. APPLICATION: This research can be applied to the identification and mitigation of attentional switching costs in a variety of visual search tasks. Furthermore, it demonstrates the efficacy of noninvasive behavioral monitoring for inferring cognitive events.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".