Literature DB >> 12118875

The perceived utility of human and automated aids in a visual detection task.

Mary T Dzindolet1, Linda G Pierce, Hall P Beck, Lloyd A Dawe.   

Abstract

Although increases in the use of automation have occurred across society, research has found that human operators often underutilize (disuse) and overly rely on (misuse) automated aids (R. Parasuraman & V. Riley, 1997). Nearly 275 Cameron University students participated in 1 of 3 experiments performed to examine the effects of perceived utility (M. T. Dzindolet, H. P. Beck, L. G. Pierce, & L. A. Dawe, 2001) on automation use in a visual detection task and to compare reliance on automated aids with reliance on humans. Results revealed a bias for human operators to rely on themselves. Although self-report data indicate a bias toward automated aids over human aids, performance data revealed that participants were more likely to disuse automated aids than to disuse human aids. This discrepancy was accounted for by assuming human operators have a "perfect automation" schema. Actual or potential applications of this research include the design of future automateddecision aids and training procedures for operators relying on such aids.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12118875     DOI: 10.1518/0018720024494856

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


  11 in total

1.  Advice Taking from Humans and Machines: An fMRI and Effective Connectivity Study.

Authors:  Kimberly Goodyear; Raja Parasuraman; Sergey Chernyak; Poornima Madhavan; Gopikrishna Deshpande; Frank Krueger
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-11-04       Impact factor: 3.169

2.  Automation-Induced Complacency Potential: Development and Validation of a New Scale.

Authors:  Stephanie M Merritt; Alicia Ako-Brew; William J Bryant; Amy Staley; Michael McKenna; Austin Leone; Lei Shirase
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-02-19

3.  Automation Inner Speech as an Anthropomorphic Feature Affecting Human Trust: Current Issues and Future Directions.

Authors:  Alessandro Geraci; Antonella D'Amico; Arianna Pipitone; Valeria Seidita; Antonio Chella
Journal:  Front Robot AI       Date:  2021-04-23

4.  Perceptions of AI engaging in human expression.

Authors:  Alexander H Bower; Mark Steyvers
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-10-27       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Hiding Behind Machines: Artificial Agents May Help to Evade Punishment.

Authors:  Till Feier; Jan Gogoll; Matthias Uhl
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2022-04-04       Impact factor: 3.777

6.  Challenging presumed technological superiority when working with (artificial) colleagues.

Authors:  Tobias Rieger; Eileen Roesler; Dietrich Manzey
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Trust in the Danger Zone: Individual Differences in Confidence in Robot Threat Assessments.

Authors:  Jinchao Lin; April Rose Panganiban; Gerald Matthews; Katey Gibbins; Emily Ankeney; Carlie See; Rachel Bailey; Michael Long
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-03-31

Review 8.  From Trust in Automation to Decision Neuroscience: Applying Cognitive Neuroscience Methods to Understand and Improve Interaction Decisions Involved in Human Automation Interaction.

Authors:  Kim Drnec; Amar R Marathe; Jamie R Lukos; Jason S Metcalfe
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  Learning From the Slips of Others: Neural Correlates of Trust in Automated Agents.

Authors:  Ewart J de Visser; Paul J Beatty; Justin R Estepp; Spencer Kohn; Abdulaziz Abubshait; John R Fedota; Craig G McDonald
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2018-08-10       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  When people are defeated by artificial intelligence in a competition task requiring logical thinking, how do they make causal attribution?

Authors:  Ryosuke Yokoi; Kazuya Nakayachi
Journal:  Curr Psychol       Date:  2022-01-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.