Examine the effects of decision risk and automation transparency on the accuracy and timeliness of operator decisions, automation verification rates, and subjective workload.
Background
Decision aids typically benefit performance, but can provide incorrect advice due to contextual factors, creating the potential for automation disuse or misuse. Decision aids can reduce an operator’s manual problem evaluation, and it can also be strategic for operators to minimize verifying automated advice in order to manage workload.
Method
Participants assigned the optimal unmanned vehicle to complete missions. A decision aid provided advice but was not always reliable. Two levels of decision aid transparency were manipulated between participants. The risk associated with each decision was manipulated using a financial incentive scheme. Participants could use a calculator to verify automated advice; however, this resulted in a financial penalty.
Results
For high- compared with low-risk decisions, participants were more likely to reject incorrect automated advice and were more likely to verify automation and reported higher workload. Increased transparency did not lead to more accurate decisions and did not impact workload but decreased automation verification and eliminated the increased decision time associated with high decision risk.
Conclusion
Increased automation transparency was beneficial in that it decreased automation verification and decreased decision time. The increased workload and automation verification for high-risk missions is not necessarily problematic given the improved automation correct rejection rate.
Application
The findings have potential application to the design of interfaces to improve human–automation teaming, and for anticipating the impact of decision risk on operator behavior.
BhaskaraA.DuongL.BrooksJ.LiR.McInerneyR.SkinnerM.PongracicH.LoftS. (2021). Effect of automation transparency in the management of multiple unmanned vehicles. Applied Ergonomics, 90, 1–14. [Article 103243]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103243
2.
BhaskaraA.SkinnerM.LoftS. (2020). Agent transparency: A review of current theory and evidence. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 50, 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2020.2965529
3.
BrookeJ. (1996). SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. InJordanP. W.ThomasB.WeerdmeesterB. A.McClellandI. L. (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp.189–194). Taylor & Francis.
4.
CalhounG. L.RuffH. A.BehymerK. J.FrostE. M. (2018). Human-autonomy teaming interface design considerations for multi-unmanned vehicle control. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 19, 321–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2017.1315751
5.
ChenJ. Y. C.BarnesM. J. (2014). Human–agent teaming for multirobot control: A review of human factors issues. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 44, 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2013.2293535
6.
ChenJ. Y. C.ProcciK.BoyceM.WrightJ.GarciaA.BarnesM. (2014). Situation awareness-based agent transparency. (ARL-TR-6905). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Research Laboratory.
CohenM. S.ParasuramanR.FreemanJ. T. (1998). Trust in decision aids: A model and its training implications[Symposium] Proceedings of the 1998 Command and Control of Research and Technology Symposium, Washington, DC: Department of Defense, C4ISSR Cooperative Research Program, pp. 1–37.
9.
de VriesP.MiddenC.BouwhuisD. (2003). The effects of errors on system trust, self-confidence, and the allocation of control in route planning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 719–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00039-9
10.
DorneichM. C.DudleyR.Letsu-DakeE.RogersW.WhitlowS. D.DillardM. C.NelsonE. (2017). Interaction of automation visibility and information quality in flight deck information automation. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 47, 915–926. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2017.2717939
EzerN.FiskA. D.RogersW. A. (2008). Age-related differences in reliance behavior attributable to costs within a human-decision aid system. Human Factors, 50, 853–863. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X375018
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators’ adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 153–184. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1994.1007
LyonsJ. B.SadlerG. G.KoltaiK.BattisteH.HoN. T.HoffmanL. C.ShivelyR. (2017). Shaping trust through transparent design: Theoretical and experimental guidelines. InSavage-KnepshieldP.ChenJ. (Eds.), Advances in human factors in robots and unmanned systems. Springer International Publishing.
17.
MacmillanN. A.KaplanH. L. (1985). Detection theory analysis of group data: Estimating sensitivity from average hit and false-alarm rates. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.1.185
18.
MadhavanP.WiegmannD. A. (2007). Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: An integrative review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8, 277–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220500337708
19.
McGuirlJ. M.SarterN. B. (2006). Supporting trust calibration and the effective use of decision aids by presenting dynamic system confidence information. Human Factors, 48, 656–665. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006779166334
20.
MercadoJ. E.RuppM. A.ChenJ. Y. C.BarnesM. J.BarberD.ProcciK. (2016). Intelligent agent transparency in human–agent teaming for multi-UxV management. Human Factors, 58, 401–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815621206
MoreyD. A.MarquiseeJ. M.GiffordR. C.FitzgeraldM. C.RayoM. F. (2020). Predicting graceful extensibility of human-machine systems: A new analysis method for evaluating extensibility plots to anticipate distributed system performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 64, 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181320641072
25.
MuirB. M. (1987). Trust between humans and machines. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 27, 327–339.
26.
ParasuramanR.ManzeyD. H. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors, 52, 381–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720810376055
RoundtreeK. A.GoodrichM. A.AdamsJ. A. (2019). Transparency: Transitioning from human–machine systems to human-swarm systems. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 13, 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343419842776
29.
SatterfieldK.BaldwinC.de VisserE.ShawT. (2017). The influence of risky conditions in trust in autonomous systems. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 61, 324–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601562
30.
SmithP. J.McCoyC. E.LaytonC. (1997). Brittleness in the design of cooperative problem-solving systems: The effects on user performance. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, 27, 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.568744
31.
SteinE. S. (1985). Air traffic controller workload: An examination of workload probe. FAA.
32.
StowersK.KasdaglisN.RuppM. A.NewtonO. B.ChenJ. Y. C.BarnesM. J. (2020). The impact of agent transparency on human performance. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 50, 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2020.2978041
33.
WoodsD. D. (1984). Visual momentum: A concept to improve the cognitive coupling of person and computer. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 21, 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(84)80043-7
34.
WoodsD. D. (1995). Toward a theoretical base for representation design in the computer medium: Ecological perception and aiding human cognition. InFlachJ.HancockP.CaridJ.VicenteK. J. (Eds.), Global perspective on the ecology of human-machine systems (pp.157–188). L. Erlbaum.
35.
WoodsD. D. (1996). Decomposing automation: Apparent simplicity, real complexity. InParasuramanR.MoulouaM. (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp.3–17). Erlbaum.
