The aim of this study was to develop and validate a computational model of the automation complacency effect, as operators work on a robotic arm task, supported by three different degrees of automation.
Background:
Some computational models of complacency in human–automation interaction exist, but those are formed and validated within the context of fairly simplified monitoring failures. This research extends model validation to a much more complex task, so that system designers can establish, without need for human-in-the-loop (HITL) experimentation, merits and shortcomings of different automation degrees.
Method:
We developed a realistic simulation of a space-based robotic arm task that could be carried out with three different levels of trajectory visualization and execution automation support. Using this simulation, we performed HITL testing. Complacency was induced via several trials of correctly performing automation and then was assessed on trials when automation failed. Following a cognitive task analysis of the robotic arm operation, we developed a multicomponent model of the robotic operator and his or her reliance on automation, based in part on visual scanning.
Results:
The comparison of model predictions with empirical results revealed that the model accurately predicted routine performance and predicted the responses to these failures after complacency developed. However, the scanning models do not account for the entire attention allocation effects of complacency.
Applications:
Complacency modeling can provide a useful tool for predicting the effects of different types of imperfect automation. The results from this research suggest that focus should be given to supporting situation awareness in automation development.
BagheriN.JamiesonG. A. (2004). Considering subjective trust and monitoring behavior in assessing automation-induced “complacency.” In VicenziD. A.MoulouaM.HancockP. A. (Eds.), Human performance, situation awareness, and automation (HPSAA II) (pp. 54–59). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
DuleyJ. A.WestermanS.MolloyR.ParasuramanR. (1997). Effects of display superimposition on monitoring of automation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 322–326). Columbus, OH: Association of Aviation Psychology.
3.
FarrellS.LewandowskyS. (2000). A connectionist model of complacency and adaptive recovery under automation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 395–410.
4.
GacyA. M.WickensC. D.SebokA.GoreB. F.HooeyB. L. (2011). Modeling operator performance and cognition in robotic missions. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 55th Annual Meeting (pp. 861–865). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
5.
GoreB. F. (2010). Man–machine integration design and analysis system (MIDAS) v5: Augmentations, motivations, and directions for aeronautics applications. In CacciabuP. C.HjalmdahlM.LuedtkeA.RiccioliC. (Eds.), Human modelling in assisted transportation (pp. 43–54). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
6.
HooeyB. L.GoreB. G.WickensC. D.Scott-NashS.SocashC.SaludE.FoyleD. C. (2010). Modeling pilot situation awareness. In CacciabuP. C.HjalmdahlM.LuedtkeA.RiccioliC. (Eds.), Human modelling in assisted transportation (pp. 207–214). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
7.
KaberD. B.OnalE.EndsleyM. R. (2000). Design of automation for telerobots and the effect on performance, operator situation awareness, and subjective workload. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 10, 409–430.
8.
LevisonW.BaronS.KleinmanD. (1969). A model for human controller remnant. IEEE Transactions in Man–Machine Systems, 10, 101–108.
9.
LiH.WickensC.SarterN.SebokA. (2014). Stages and levels of automation in support of space teleoperations. Human Factors. Advance online publication.
10.
LuzM.ManzeyD.ModemanneS.StraussC. (2014). Less is sometimes more: A comparison of distance control and navigated-control concepts of image guided navigation support for surgeons. Ergonomics. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.970588
11.
MetzgerU.ParasuramanR. (2005). Automation in future air traffic management: Effects of decision aid reliability on controller performance and mental workload. Human Factors, 47, 35–49.
12.
MorayN.InagakiT. (2000). Attention and complacency. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1, 354–365.
13.
MorrowD. G.WickensC. D.NorthR. (2006). Reducing and mitigating human error in medicine. In NickersonR. S. (Ed.), Annual review of human factors and ergonomics (Vol. 1, pp. 254–296). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
14.
OnnaschL.WickensC.LiH.ManzeyD. (2014). Human performance consequences of stages and levels of automation: An integrated meta-analysis. Human Factors, 56, 476–488.
15.
ParasuramanR. (1987). Human–computer monitoring. Human Factors, 29, 695–706.
16.
ParasuramanR.ManzeyD. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: A review and attentional synthesis. Human Factors, 52, 381–410.
17.
ParasuramanR.MolloyR.SinghI. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced “complacency.”International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 1–23.
18.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC. D. (2000). A model of types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics–Part A: Systems and Humans, 30, 286–297.
19.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC. D. (2008). Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: Viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. Journal of Cognitive Engineering & Decision Making, 6, 140–160.
20.
RensinkR. A. (2002). Change detection. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 245–277.
21.
SebokA.WickensC. D.Sarter (2013). Space human factors and habitability MIDAS-FAST: Development and validation of a tool to support function allocation final report. Submitted to the NASA Human Research Program (Grant No. NNX09AM81G).
22.
SendersJ. W. (1983). Visual sampling processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
SheridanT. B. (1970). On how often a supervisor should sample. IEEE Transactions in Systems Science & Cybernetics, 6, 140–145.
24.
SteelmanK. S.McCarleyJ. S.WickensC. D. (2013). Great expectations: Top-down attentional control modulates the costs of the clutter and eccentricity on alert detection performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 403–419.
25.
WickensC. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 159–177.
26.
WickensC. D. (2014). Noticing events in the visual workplace: The SEEV and NSEEV models. In HoffmanR.ParasuramanR. (Eds.), Handbook of applied perception (Chap. 37). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
WickensC. D.DixonS.GohJ.HammerB. (2005, March). Pilot dependence on imperfect diagnostic automation in simulated UAV flights: An attentional visual scanning analysis. Paper presented at the 13th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, OH.
28.
WickensC. D.KellerJ.SmallR. (2010). Development of the Frame of Reference Transformation Tool (FORT). In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting (pp. 1022–1026). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
29.
WickensC. D.LiH.SantamariaA.SebokA.SarterN. (2010). Stages and levels of automation: An integrated meta-analysis. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting (pp. 389–393). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
WickensC. D.McCarleyJ. S.AlexanderA. L.ThomasL. C.AmbinderM.ZhengS. (2008). Attention-situation awareness (A-SA) model of pilot error. In FoyleD.HooeyB. (Eds.), Human performance models in aviation (pp. 213–242). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
32.
WickensC. D.SebokA.KellerJ.PetersS.SmallR.HutchinsS.AlgarínL. (2013). Modeling and evaluating pilot performance in NextGen. Washington, DC: NASA.
33.
WickensC. D.VincowM.YehM. (2005). Design applications of visual spatial thinking: The importance of frame of reference. In MiyakiA.ShahP. (Eds.), Handbook of visual spatial thinking (pp. 383–425). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
34.
WienerE. L.CurryR. E. (1980). Flight-deck automation: Promises and problems. Ergonomics, 23, 995–1011.
35.
WoodsD. (1984). Visual momentum. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 21, 229–244.
