Literature DB >> 27516495

Automation bias and verification complexity: a systematic review.

David Lyell1, Enrico Coiera1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: While potentially reducing decision errors, decision support systems can introduce new types of errors. Automation bias (AB) happens when users become overreliant on decision support, which reduces vigilance in information seeking and processing. Most research originates from the human factors literature, where the prevailing view is that AB occurs only in multitasking environments.
OBJECTIVES: This review seeks to compare the human factors and health care literature, focusing on the apparent association of AB with multitasking and task complexity. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, Medline, Compendex, Inspec, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Business Source Premiere from 1983 to 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Evaluation studies where task execution was assisted by automation and resulted in errors were included. Participants needed to be able to verify automation correctness and perform the task manually.
METHODS: Tasks were identified and grouped. Task and automation type and presence of multitasking were noted. Each task was rated for its verification complexity.
RESULTS: Of 890 papers identified, 40 met the inclusion criteria; 6 were in health care. Contrary to the prevailing human factors view, AB was found in single tasks, typically involving diagnosis rather than monitoring, and with high verification complexity. LIMITATIONS: The literature is fragmented, with large discrepancies in how AB is reported. Few studies reported the statistical significance of AB compared to a control condition.
CONCLUSION: AB appears to be associated with the degree of cognitive load experienced in decision tasks, and appears to not be uniquely associated with multitasking. Strategies to minimize AB might focus on cognitive load reduction.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical cognitive biases; complexity; decision support systems

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27516495      PMCID: PMC7651899          DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocw105

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   4.497


  32 in total

1.  Management by consent in human-machine systems: when and why it breaks down.

Authors:  W A Olson; N B Sarter
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.888

Review 2.  Complacency and bias in human use of automation: an attentional integration.

Authors:  Raja Parasuraman; Dietrich H Manzey
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.888

3.  Study of the effects of Clinical Decision Support System's incorrect advice and clinical case difficulty on users' decision making accuracy.

Authors:  Kamran Golchin; Abdul Roudsari
Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform       Date:  2011

4.  Stages and levels of automation in support of space teleoperations.

Authors:  Huiyang Li; Christopher D Wickens; Nadine Sarter; Angelia Sebok
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.888

5.  Automation bias and errors: are crews better than individuals?

Authors:  L J Skitka; K L Mosier; M Burdick; B Rosenblatt
Journal:  Int J Aviat Psychol       Date:  2000

6.  Automation bias: decision making and performance in high-tech cockpits.

Authors:  K L Mosier; L J Skitka; S Heers; M Burdick
Journal:  Int J Aviat Psychol       Date:  1997

7.  Effects of imperfect automation on decision making in a simulated command and control task.

Authors:  Ericka Rovira; Kathleen McGarry; Raja Parasuraman
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.888

8.  Automation bias: empirical results assessing influencing factors.

Authors:  Kate Goddard; Abdul Roudsari; Jeremy C Wyatt
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2014-01-17       Impact factor: 4.046

9.  Effects of incorrect computer-aided detection (CAD) output on human decision-making in mammography.

Authors:  Eugenio Alberdi; Andrey Povykalo; Lorenzo Strigini; Peter Ayton
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-10-18
View more
  25 in total

1.  Ensuring Fairness in Machine Learning to Advance Health Equity.

Authors:  Alvin Rajkomar; Michaela Hardt; Michael D Howell; Greg Corrado; Marshall H Chin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Current challenges in health information technology-related patient safety.

Authors:  Dean F Sittig; Adam Wright; Enrico Coiera; Farah Magrabi; Raj Ratwani; David W Bates; Hardeep Singh
Journal:  Health Informatics J       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 2.681

3.  Shooting from the hip into our own foot? A perspective on how artificial intelligence may disrupt medical training.

Authors:  Anmol Arora
Journal:  Future Healthc J       Date:  2020-06

4.  Reduced Verification of Medication Alerts Increases Prescribing Errors.

Authors:  David Lyell; Farah Magrabi; Enrico Coiera
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 2.342

5.  A Warning about Warning Signals for Interpreting Mammograms.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-11-09       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  Drug-drug interactions and their harmful effects in hospitalised patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Wu Yi Zheng; L C Richardson; L Li; R O Day; J I Westbrook; M T Baysari
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2017-10-23       Impact factor: 2.953

7.  Implementation and design of artificial intelligence in abdominal imaging.

Authors:  Hailey H Choi; Silvia D Chang; Marc D Kohli
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-12

Review 8.  Artificial Intelligence in Nephrology: How Can Artificial Intelligence Augment Nephrologists' Intelligence?

Authors:  Guotong Xie; Tiange Chen; Yingxue Li; Tingyu Chen; Xiang Li; Zhihong Liu
Journal:  Kidney Dis (Basel)       Date:  2019-12-03

Review 9.  The Importance of Incorporating Human Factors in the Design and Implementation of Artificial Intelligence for Skin Cancer Diagnosis in the Real World.

Authors:  Claire M Felmingham; Nikki R Adler; Zongyuan Ge; Rachael L Morton; Monika Janda; Victoria J Mar
Journal:  Am J Clin Dermatol       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 7.403

Review 10.  Research Trends in Artificial Intelligence Applications in Human Factors Health Care: Mapping Review.

Authors:  Onur Asan; Avishek Choudhury
Journal:  JMIR Hum Factors       Date:  2021-06-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.