Literature DB >> 17240718

Comparison of a brain-based adaptive system and a manual adaptable system for invoking automation.

Nathan R Bailey1, Mark W Scerbo, Frederick G Freeman, Peter J Mikulka, Lorissa A Scott.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Two experiments are presented examining adaptive and adaptable methods for invoking automation.
BACKGROUND: Empirical investigations of adaptive automation have focused on methods used to invoke automation or on automation-related performance implications. However, no research has addressed whether performance benefits associated with brain-based systems exceed those in which users have control over task allocations.
METHOD: Participants performed monitoring and resource management tasks as well as a tracking task that shifted between automatic and manual modes. In the first experiment, participants worked with an adaptive system that used their electroencephalographic signals to switch the tracking task between automatic and manual modes. Participants were also divided between high- and low-reliability conditions for the system-monitoring task as well as high- and low-complacency potential. For the second experiment, participants operated an adaptable system that gave them manual control over task allocations.
RESULTS: Results indicated increased situation awareness (SA) of gauge instrument settings for individuals high in complacency potential using the adaptive system. In addition, participants who had control over automation performed more poorly on the resource management task and reported higher levels of workload. A comparison between systems also revealed enhanced SA of gauge instrument settings and decreased workload in the adaptive condition.
CONCLUSION: The present results suggest that brain-based adaptive automation systems may enhance perceptual level SA while reducing mental workload relative to systems requiring user-initiated control. APPLICATION: Potential applications include automated systems for which operator monitoring performance and high-workload conditions are of concern.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17240718     DOI: 10.1518/001872006779166280

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


  4 in total

1.  Evaluation of an Adaptive Game that Uses EEG Measures Validated during the Design Process as Inputs to a Biocybernetic Loop.

Authors:  Kate C Ewing; Stephen H Fairclough; Kiel Gilleade
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 3.169

2.  Sensor Networks for Aerospace Human-Machine Systems.

Authors:  Nichakorn Pongsakornsathien; Yixiang Lim; Alessandro Gardi; Samuel Hilton; Lars Planke; Roberto Sabatini; Trevor Kistan; Neta Ezer
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2019-08-08       Impact factor: 3.576

3.  Applications of EEG indices for the quantification of human cognitive performance: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis.

Authors:  Lina Elsherif Ismail; Waldemar Karwowski
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-04       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.