Identify a critical research gap for the human factors community that has implications for successful human–automation teaming.
Background
There are a variety of approaches for applying automation in systems. Flexible application of automation such that its level and/or type changes during system operations has been shown to enhance human–automation system performance.
Method
This mini-review describes flexible automation in which the level of automated support varies across tasks during system operation, rather than remaining fixed. Two types distinguish the locus of authority to change automation level: adaptable automation (the human operator assigns how automation is applied) has been found to aid human’s situation awareness and provide more perceived control versus adaptive automation (the system assigns automation level) that may impose less workload and attentional demands by automatically adjusting levels in response to changes in one or more states of the human, task, environment, and so on.
Results
In contrast to vast investments in adaptive automation approaches, limited research has been devoted to adaptable automation. Experiments directly comparing adaptable and adaptive automation are particularly scant. These few studies show that adaptable automation was not only preferred over adaptive automation, but it also resulted in improved task performance and, notably, less perceived workload.
Conclusion
Systematic research examining adaptable automation is overdue, including hybrid approaches with adaptive automation. Specific recommendations for further research are provided.
Application
Adaptable automation together with effective human-factored interface designs to establish working agreements are key to enabling human–automation teaming in future complex systems.
BaileyN. R.ScerboM. W.FreemanF. G.MikulkaP. J.ScottL. A. (2006). Comparison of a brain-based adaptive system and a manual adaptable system for invoking automation. Human Factors, 48, 693–709.doi:10.1518/00187200677916628017240718
2.
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.doi:10.1080/1463922X.2017.1315751
3.
CalhounG. L.WardV. B. R.RuffH. A. (2011). Performance-based adaptive automation for supervisory control. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 55, 2059–2063.doi:10.1177/1071181311551429
4.
ChenS.VisserT. A. W.HufS.LoftS. (2017). Optimizing the balance between task automation and human manual control in simulated submarine track management. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23, 240–262.doi:10.1037/xap000012628604012
5.
DavenportT.KalakotaR. (2019). The potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare. Future Healthcare Journal, 6, 94–98.doi:10.7861/futurehosp.6-2-9431363513
6.
EndsleyM. R. (2017). From here to autonomy: Lessons learned from human-automation research. Human Factors, 59, 5–27.
7.
EndsleyM. R.KaberD. B. (1999). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics, 42, 462–492.doi:10.1080/00140139918559510048306
8.
EndsleyM. R.KirisE. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37, 381–394.doi:10.1518/001872095779064555
9.
FeighK. M.DorneichM. C.HayesC. C. (2012). Toward a characterization of adaptive systems: A framework for researchers and system designers. Human Factors, 54, 1008–1024.doi:10.1177/001872081244398323397810
10.
GutzwillerR. S.EspinosaS. H.KennyC.LangeD. S. (2017). A design pattern for working agreements in human-autonomy teaming. InInternational Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (pp.12–24). Springer, Cham.
11.
HancockP. A.ScallenS. F. (1996). The future of function allocation. Ergonomics in Design, 4, 24–29.doi:10.1177/106480469600400406
12.
HayesC. C.MillerC. A. (2010). Human-computer etiquette: Cultural expectations and the design implications they place on computers and technology. CRC Press.doi:10.1201/b10420
13.
InagakiT. (2003). Adaptive automation: Sharing and trading of control. InHollnagelE. (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive task design (Chapter 8, pp.147–169). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14.
JoeJ.O’HaraJ.MedemaH.OxstrandJ. (2014). Identifying requirements for effective human-automation teamwork. InProceedings of the 12th International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM 12, Paper# 371), (INL/CON-14-31340).
15.
KaberD. B.EndsleyM. R. (2004). The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5, 113–153.doi:10.1080/1463922021000054335
16.
KaberD. B.RileyJ. M. (1999). Adaptive automation of a dynamic control task based on secondary task workload measurement. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 3, 169–187.doi:10.1207/s15327566ijce0303_1
17.
KaberD. B.WrightM. C.PrinzelL. J.ClamannM. P. (2005). Adaptive automation of human-machine system information-processing functions. Human Factors, 47, 730–741.doi:10.1518/00187200577557098916553062
18.
KidwellB.CalhounG. L.RuffH. A.ParasuramanR. (2012). Adaptable and adaptive automation for supervisory control of multiple autonomous vehicles. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56, 428–432.doi:10.1177/1071181312561096
19.
KirlikA. (1993). Modeling strategic behavior in human-automation interaction: Why an “aid” can (and should) go unused. Human Factors, 35, 221–242.doi:10.1177/0018720893035002038349287
20.
LiH.SarterN.WickensC.SebokA. (2013). Supporting human-automation collaboration through dynamic function allocation: The case of space teleoperation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 57, 359–363.doi:10.1177/1541931213571078
21.
MillerC. A.FunkH.GoldmanR.MeisnerJ.WuP. (2005). Implications of adaptive vs. adaptable UIs on decision making: Why “automated adaptiveness” is not always the right answer[Conference session]. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Augmented Cognition, Las Vegas, NV, United States.doi:10.1145/1454008.1454062
22.
MillerC. A.HannenM. D. (1999). The Rotorcraft Pilot’s Associate: Design and evaluation of an intelligent user interface for cockpit information management. Knowledge-Based Systems, 12, 443–456.doi:10.1016/S0950-7051(99)00035-0
23.
MillerC. A.ParasuramanR. (2003). Beyond levels of automation: An architecture for more flexible human automation collaboration. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 47, 182–186.doi:10.1177/154193120304700138
24.
MillerC. A.ParasuramanR. (2007). Designing for flexible interaction between humans and automation: Delegation interfaces for supervisory control. Human Factors, 49, 57–75.doi:10.1518/00187200777959803717315844
25.
MorayN.InagakiT.ItohM. (2000). Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 44–58.doi:10.1037//1076-898x.6.1.4410937311
26.
OppermannR. (1994). Adaptive user support ergonomic design of manually and automatically adaptable software. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.doi:10.1201/9781315136660
27.
ParasuramanR.BahriT.DeatonJ. E.MorrisonJ. G.BarnesM. (1992). Theory and design of adaptive automation in aviation systems. The Catholic University of America, Cognitive Science Lab.
28.
ParasuramanR.CosenzoK. A.De VisserE. (2009). Adaptive automation for human supervision of multiple uninhabited vehicles: Effects on change detection, situation awareness, and mental workload. Military Psychology, 21, 270–297.doi:10.1080/08995600902768800
29.
ParasuramanR.McKinleyR. A. (2014). Using noninvasive brain stimulation to accelerate learning and enhance human performance. Human Factors, 56, 816–824.doi:10.1177/001872081453881525141590
30.
ParasuramanR.MoulouaM.MolloyR. (1996). Effects of adaptive task allocation on monitoring of automated systems. Human Factors, 38, 665–679.doi:10.1518/00187209677882727911536753
31.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.doi:10.1518/001872097778543886
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.doi:10.1109/3468.844354
34.
ParasuramanR.WickensC. D. (2008). Humans: Still vital after all these years of automation. Human Factors, 50, 511–520.doi:10.1518/001872008X31219818689061
35.
PritchettA. R.KimS. Y.FeighK. M. (2014). Measuring human-automation function allocation. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 8, 52–77.doi:10.1177/1555343413490166
36.
RothE. M.PritchettA. R. (2018). Preface to the special issue on advancing models of human-automation interaction. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 12, 3–6.doi:10.1177/1555343417749192
37.
RuffH.CalhounG.FrostE.BehymerK.BartikJ. (2018). Comparison of adaptive, adaptable, and hybrid automation for surveillance task completion in a multi-task environment. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62, 155–159.doi:10.1177/1541931218621036
38.
SauerJ.ChavaillazA. (2018). How operators make use of wide-choice adaptable automation: Observations from a series of experimental studies. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 19, 135–155.doi:10.1080/1463922X.2017.1297866
39.
SauerJ.KaoC. S.WastellD. (2012). A comparison of adaptive and adaptable automation under different levels of environmental stress. Ergonomics, 55, 840–853.doi:10.1080/00140139.2012.67667322506767
40.
ScerboM. W. (1996). Theoretical perspectives on adaptive automation. InParasuramanR.MoulouaM. (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and application (pp.37–63). Lawrence Erlbaum.
41.
ScerboM. W. (2007). Adaptive automation. InParasuramanR.RizzoM. (Eds.), Neuroergonomics: The brain at work (Chapter 16, pp.239–252). Oxford University Press.
42.
SheridanT. B. (2016). Human-robot interaction: status and challenges. Human Factors, 58, 525–532.doi:10.1177/001872081664436427098262
43.
SheridanT. B.VerplankW. L. (1978). Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Technical Report. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge Man-Machine Systems Laboratory.
44.
TokadliG.DorneichM. C.MatessaM. (2021). Evaluation of a Playbook delegation approach in human-autonomy teaming for single pilot operations. International Journal of Human-Computer Interactions, Special Issues on HCI in the Modern Flight Deck, 3.doi:10.1080/10447318.2021.1890485
45.
VagiaM.TransethA. A.FjerdingenS. A. (2016). A literature review on the levels of automation during the years. What are the different taxonomies that have been proposed?Applied Ergonomics, Part A, 53, 190–202.doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.09.01326467193
46.
van DongenK.van MaanenP. P. (2005). Designing for dynamic task allocation. InSchraagenJ. M. S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Naturalistic Decision Making Conference (NDM7), Amsterdam.
47.
YoungM. S.StantonN. A.HarrisD. (2007). Driving automation: Learning from aviation about design philosophies. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 45, 323–338.doi:10.1504/IJVD.2007.014908
