Literature DB >> 17702209

On the independence of compliance and reliance: are automation false alarms worse than misses?

Stephen R Dixon1, Christopher D Wickens, Jason S McCarley.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Participants performed a tracking task and system monitoring task while aided by diagnostic automation. The goal of the study was to examine operator compliance and reliance as affected by automation failures and to clarify claims regarding independence of these two constructs.
BACKGROUND: Background data revealed a trend toward nonindependence of the compliance-reliance constructs.
METHOD: Thirty-two undergraduate students performed the simulation that presented the visual display while dependent measures were collected.
RESULTS: False alarm-prone automation hurt overall performance more than miss-prone automation. False alarm-prone automation also clearly affected both operator compliance and reliance, whereas miss-prone automation appeared to affect only operator reliance.
CONCLUSION: Compliance and reliance do not appear to be entirely independent of each other. APPLICATION: False alarms appear to be more damaging to overall performance than misses, and designers must take the compliance-reliance constructs into consideration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17702209     DOI: 10.1518/001872007X215656

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


  11 in total

1.  Prospective memory in an air traffic control simulation: external aids that signal when to act.

Authors:  Shayne Loft; Rebekah E Smith; Adella Bhaskara
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Appl       Date:  2011-03

2.  Automatic notifications mediated by anesthesia information management systems reduce the frequency of prolonged gaps in blood pressure documentation.

Authors:  Jesse M Ehrenfeld; Richard H Epstein; Stephen Bader; Sachin Kheterpal; Warren S Sandberg
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 5.108

3.  Understanding human management of automation errors.

Authors:  Sara E McBride; Wendy A Rogers; Arthur D Fisk
Journal:  Theor Issues Ergon Sci       Date:  2014

4.  Understanding the effect of workload on automation use for younger and older adults.

Authors:  Sara E McBride; Wendy A Rogers; Arthur D Fisk
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.888

Review 5.  Automated Plan Checking Software Demonstrates Continuous and Sustained Improvements in Safety and Quality: A 3-year Longitudinal Analysis.

Authors:  Delaney Stuhr; Ying Zhou; Hai Pham; Jian-Ping Xiong; Shi Liu; James G Mechalakos; Sean L Berry
Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol       Date:  2021-10-17

6.  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

7.  Sepsis surveillance: an examination of parameter sensitivity and alert reliability.

Authors:  Robert C Amland; Mark Burghart; J Marc Overhage
Journal:  JAMIA Open       Date:  2019-06-11

Review 8.  Human Factors Considerations and Metrics in Shared Space Human-Robot Collaboration: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Sarah Hopko; Jingkun Wang; Ranjana Mehta
Journal:  Front Robot AI       Date:  2022-02-03

9.  Out of touch? Visual load induces inattentional numbness.

Authors:  Sandra Murphy; Polly Dalton
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2016-03-14       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.