OBJECTIVE: Effects of four types of automation support and two levels of automation reliability were examined. The objective was to examine the differential impact of information and decision automation and to investigate the costs of automation unreliability. BACKGROUND: Research has shown that imperfect automation can lead to differential effects of stages and levels of automation on human performance. METHOD: Eighteen participants performed a "sensor to shooter" targeting simulation of command and control. Dependent variables included accuracy and response time of target engagement decisions, secondary task performance, and subjective ratings of mental work-load, trust, and self-confidence. RESULTS: Compared with manual performance, reliable automation significantly reduced decision times. Unreliable automation led to greater cost in decision-making accuracy under the higher automation reliability condition for three different forms of decision automation relative to information automation. At low automation reliability, however, there was a cost in performance for both information and decision automation. CONCLUSION: The results are consistent with a model of human-automation interaction that requires evaluation of the different stages of information processing to which automation support can be applied. APPLICATION: If fully reliable decision automation cannot be guaranteed, designers should provide users with information automation support or other tools that allow for inspection and analysis of raw data.
OBJECTIVE: Effects of four types of automation support and two levels of automation reliability were examined. The objective was to examine the differential impact of information and decision automation and to investigate the costs of automation unreliability. BACKGROUND: Research has shown that imperfect automation can lead to differential effects of stages and levels of automation on human performance. METHOD: Eighteen participants performed a "sensor to shooter" targeting simulation of command and control. Dependent variables included accuracy and response time of target engagement decisions, secondary task performance, and subjective ratings of mental work-load, trust, and self-confidence. RESULTS: Compared with manual performance, reliable automation significantly reduced decision times. Unreliable automation led to greater cost in decision-making accuracy under the higher automation reliability condition for three different forms of decision automation relative to information automation. At low automation reliability, however, there was a cost in performance for both information and decision automation. CONCLUSION: The results are consistent with a model of human-automation interaction that requires evaluation of the different stages of information processing to which automation support can be applied. APPLICATION: If fully reliable decision automation cannot be guaranteed, designers should provide users with information automation support or other tools that allow for inspection and analysis of raw data.
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
Authors: Shyam Visweswaran; Andrew J King; Mohammadamin Tajgardoon; Luca Calzoni; Gilles Clermont; Harry Hochheiser; Gregory F Cooper Journal: JAMIA Open Date: 2021-08-02