Literature DB >> 12002006

Supporting decision making and action selection under time pressure and uncertainty: the case of in-flight icing.

N B Sarter1, B Schroeder.   

Abstract

Operators in high-risk domains such as aviation often need to make decisions under time pressure and uncertainty. One way to support them in this task is through the introduction of decision support systems (DSSs). The present study examined the effectiveness of two different DSS implementations: status and command displays. Twenty-seven pilots (9 pilots each in a baseline, status, and command group) flew 20 simulated approaches involving icing encounters. Accuracy of the decision aid (a smart icing system), familiarity with the icing condition, timing of icing onset, and autopilot usage were varied within subjects. Accurate information from either decision aid led to improved handling of the icing encounter. However, when inaccurate information was presented, performance dropped below that of the baseline condition. The cost of inaccurate information was particularly high for command displays and in the case of unfamiliar icing conditions. Our findings suggest that unless perfect reliability of a decision aid can be assumed, status displays may be preferable to command displays in high-risk domains (e.g., space flight, medicine, and process control), as the former yield more robust performance benefits and appear less vulnerable to automation biases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 12002006     DOI: 10.1518/001872001775870403

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Factors        ISSN: 0018-7208            Impact factor:   2.888


  5 in total

1.  Less is (sometimes) more in cognitive engineering: the role of automation technology in improving patient safety.

Authors:  K J Vicente
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2003-08

2.  Integrating ethics in design through the value-sensitive design approach.

Authors:  Mary L Cummings
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 3.  Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators.

Authors:  Kate Goddard; Abdul Roudsari; Jeremy C Wyatt
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2011-06-16       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  The Effect of Information Analysis Automation Display Content on Human Judgment Performance in Noisy Environments.

Authors:  Ellen J Bass; Leigh A Baumgart; Kathryn Klein Shepley
Journal:  J Cogn Eng Decis Mak       Date:  2013-03-01

Review 5.  Automation bias and verification complexity: a systematic review.

Authors:  David Lyell; Enrico Coiera
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 4.497

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.