The effects of first automation failure (e.g., Wickens & Xu, 2002) on performance of individuals in a subsequent failure trial when they worked with automated systems applied to different stages of information processing (e.g., Parasuraman, Sheridan, & Wickens, 2000), was examined using the domain of air traffic control. The results revealed that even after exposure to an automation failure, individuals working with higher order automation continued to have lower situation awareness and were slower in responding to a subsequent automation failure compared to those in the information acquisition condition. Results from this experiment have practical implications for automation design and operator training.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BillingsC. E. (1991). Human-centered aircraft automation: A concept and guidelines (NASA Tech. Memorandum 103885). Moffet Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
2.
BirosD. P.DalyM.GunschG. (2004). The Influence of Task Load and Automation Trust on Deception Detection. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 173-189.
3.
BroachD. (2002). Functional requirements for the Windows®-based ATCS Pre-Training Screen (WinPTS). Oklahoma City, OK: Civil Aerospace Medical Institute Training and Organizational Research Laboratory.
4.
DavisonH. J.WickensC. D. (2001). Rotorcraft hazard cueing: The effects on attention and trust. Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University
5.
DzindoletM.PierceL.PetersonS.PurcellL.BeckH. (2002). The influence of feedback on automation use, misuse, and disuse. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA, 551-555.
6.
EndsleyM. R. (1995). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems, Human Factors, 37, 65-84.
7.
EndsleyM. R.BolteB.JonesD. G. (2003). Designing for situation awareness: An approach to user-centered design. New York: Taylor & Francis.
8.
EndsleyM. R.KirisE. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37, 381-394.
9.
JohnstonJ. C.HorlitzK. L.EdmistonR. W. (1993). Improving situation awareness displays for air traffic controllers. In JensenR. S.NeumesiterD. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 328-334). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
KantowitzB. H.HanowskiR. J.KantowitzS. C. (1997). Driver acceptance of unreliable traffic information in familiar and unfamiliar settings. Human Factors,39, 164-176.
12.
LorenzB.Di NoceraF.RöttgerS.ParasuramanR. (2002). Automated flight management in a simulated space flight microworld. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 73, 886-897.
13.
MerloJ. L.WickensC. D.YehM. (1999). Effect of reliability on cue effectiveness and display signaling. (Tech. Report ARL-99-4/FED-LAB-99-3). Savoy: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Lab.
14.
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.
15.
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.
16.
National Transportation Safety Board (2001). Annual review of aircraft accident data, U.S. Air Carrier Operations: Calendar year 2001 (Report Number. ARC-06-01). Washington, DC: Author.
17.
ParasuramanR. (1987). Human-computer monitoring. Human Factors, 29, 695-706.
18.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, and abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230-253.
19.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 30, 286-297.
20.
RoviraE.McGarryK.ParasuramanR. (2007). Effects of imperfect automation on decision making in a simulated command and control task. Human Factors, 49, 76-87.
21.
SarterN. B.SchroederB. (2001). Supporting decision making and action selection under time pressure and uncertainty: The case of in-flight icing. Human Factors, 43, 573-583.
22.
SeppeltB.D.LeeJ.D. (2007). Making adaptive cruise control (ACC) limits visible. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65, 192–205.
23.
TreismanA. (1986). Features and objects in visual processing. Scientific American, 255, 114–125.
24.
WangL.JamiesonG.HollandJ. (2009). Trust and Reliance on an Automated Combat Identification System. Human Factors, 51, 281-291.
25.
WickensC. D.XuX. (2002). Automation trust, reliability and attention (Tech. Rep.AHFD-0214/MAAD-02-2). Savoy: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Lab.
26.
WienerE. L.CurryR. E. (1980). Flight deck automation: Promises and problems. Ergonomics, 23, 995-1011.
