Objective: The authors investigated how human performance consequences of automated decision aids are affected by the degree of automation and the operator’s functional state.
Background: As research has shown, decision aids may not only improve performance but also lead to new sorts of risks. Whereas knowledge exists about the impact of system characteristics (e.g., reliability) on human performance, little is known about how these performance consequences are moderated by the functional state of operators.
Method: Participants performed a simulated supervisory process control task with one of two decision aids providing support for fault identification and management. One session took place during the day, and another one took place during the night after a prolonged waking phase of more than 20 hr.
Results: Results showed that decision aids can support humans effectively in maintaining high levels of performance, even in states of sleep loss, with more highly automated aids being more effective than less automated ones. Furthermore, participants suffering from sleep loss were found to be more careful in interaction with the aids, that is, less prone to effects of complacency and automation bias. However, cost effects arose that included a decline in secondary-task performance and an increased risk of return-to-manual performance decrements.
Conclusion: Automation support can help protect performance after a period of extended wakefulness. In addition, operators suffering from sleep loss seem to compensate for their impaired functional state by reallocating resources and showing a more attentive behavior toward possible automation failures.
Application: Results of this research can inform the design of automation, especially decision aids.
BaileyN. R.ScerboM. W. (2007). Automation-induced complacency for monitoring highly reliable systems: The role of task complexity, system experience, and operator trust. Theoretical Issues of Ergonomics Science, 8, 321–348.
2.
BahnerJ. E.HueperA. C.ManzeyD. (2008). Misuse of automated decision aids: Complacency, automation bias, and the impact of training experiences. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 66, 688–699.
ChaumetG.TaillardJ.SagaspeP.PaganiM.DingesD. F.Pavy-Le-TraonA.BareilleM.-P.RascolO.PhilipP. (2009). Confinement and sleep deprivation effects on propensity to take risks. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 80, 73–80.
5.
DingesD. I.PowellJ. W. (1985). Microcomputer analysis of performance on a portable, simple visual RT task sustained operations. Behavioral Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 17, 652–655.
6.
EndsleyM. R.KirisE. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37, 387–394.
7.
EndsleyM. R.KaberD. B. (1999). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness, and workload in dynamic control task. Ergonomics, 42, 462–492.
8.
GriefahnB.KünemundC.BrödeP.MehnertP. (2001). Zur Validität der deutschen Übersetzung des Morningness-Eveningness-Questionnaires von Horne und Östberg [Introduction: Operator functional state in the analysis of complex performance]. Somnologie, 5, 71–80.
9.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of a multi-dimensional workload rating scale: Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP. A.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
10.
HockeyG. R. J. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology, 45, 73–93.
11.
HockeyG. R. J. (2003). Introduction: Operator functional state in the analysis of complex task performance. In HockeyG .R. J.GaillardA. W. K.BurovO. (Eds.), Operator functional state: The assessment and prediction of human performance degradation in complex tasks (pp. 3–7). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS.
12.
HockeyG. R. J.WastellD. G.SauerJ. (1998). Effects of sleep deprivation and user interface on complex performance: a multilevel analysis of compensatory control. Human Factors, 40, 233–253.
13.
HoddesE.DementW. C.ZarconeV. (1972). The development and use of the Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS). Psychophysiology, 10, 431–436.
14.
KillgoreW. D. S. (2007). Effects of sleep deprivation and morningness-eveningness traits on risk-taking. Psychological Report, 100, 613–626.
15.
ManzeyD.ReichenbachJ.OnnaschL. (2008a). Performance consequences of automated aids in process control: The impact of function allocation. Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 297–301). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Engineering Society.
16.
ManzeyD.BleilM.Bahner-HeyneJ. E.KlostermannA.OnnaschL.ReichenbachJ.RöttgerS. (2008b). AutoCAMS 2.0 manual. Retrieved from http://www.aio.tu-berlin.de/?id=30492
17.
MosierK. L.SkitkaL. J. (1996). Human decision makers and automated decision aids: Made for each other? In ParasuramanR.MoulouaM. (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 201–220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
ParasuramanR.ManzeyD. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors, 52, 381–410.
19.
ParasuramanR.MolloyR.SinghI. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation induced “complacency”. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 2, 1–23.
20.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–259.
21.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics–Part A: Systems and Humans, 30, 286–297.
22.
ReichenbachJ.OnnaschL.ManzeyD. (2010). Misuse of automation: The impact of system experience on complacency and automation bias in interaction with automated aids. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 374–378). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
23.
SauerJ.WastellD.HockeyG. R. J.EarleF. (2003). Performance in a complex multiple-task environment during laboratory-based simulation of occasional night work. Human Factors, 45, 657–669.
24.
SkitkaL. J.MosierK. L.BurdickM. (1999). Does automation bias decision-making?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 51, 991–1006.
25.
SzalmaJ. L.TaylorG. S. (2011). Individual differences in response to automation: The big five factors of personality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 71–96. doi:10.1037/a002417010.1037/a0024170
26.
WickensC. D.HuyiangL.SantamariaA.SebokA.SarterN. B. (2010). Stages and levels of automation: An integrated analysis. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Society (pp. 389–393). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
