To help operators handle increasing task demands, automated systems are increasingly being used in modern work settings. However, a potential consequence of such systems is the out of the loop performance syndrome, which refers to the reduced ability of operators working with high levels of automation support to take over manual control in the event of an automation failure (e.g., Wiener & Curry, 1980). One of the main factors considered responsible for this is a loss of operator situation awareness (SA; Endsley & Kiris, 1995). In order to improve SA and consequently improve performance, it becomes important to better understand the process of SA and the underlying factors that predict SA (e.g., Durso & Sethumadhavan, 2008). The role of meta-SA in predicting SA when individuals control air traffic with automation support is investigated in this paper. Results have practical implications for the development of SA training programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
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.
2.
CarrettaT.R.PerryD.C.ReeM.J. (1996). Prediction of situational awareness in F-15 pilots. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 6, 21-41.
3.
DominguezC. (1994). Can SA be defined? In VidulichM.DominguezC.VogelE.McMillanG. (Eds.), Situation awareness: papers and annotated bibliography (pp. 515). Wright-Patterson Airforce Base, OH: Air Force Systems Command.
4.
DunloskyJ.SerraM. J.MatveyG.RawsonK. A. (2005). Second-order judgments about judgments of learning. Journal of General Psychology, 132, 335-346.
5.
DunloskyJ.SerraM. J.BakerJ. M. (2007). Metamemory. In DursoF. T.NickersonR. S.DumaisS.T.LewandowskyS.PerfectT. J. (Eds.), Handbook of applied cognition (2nd ed., pp. 137-162). Chicester, UK: Wiley.
6.
DunloskyJ.ThiedeK. W. (1998). What makes people study more? An evaluation of factors that affect self-paced study. Acta Psychologica, 98, 37-56.
7.
DursoF. T.RawsonK. A.GirottoS (2007). Comprehension and situation awareness. In DursoF. T.NickersonR. S.DumaisS.T.LewandowskyS.PerfectT. J. (Eds.), Handbook of applied cognition (2nd ed., pp. 163-193). Chicester, UK: Wiley.
EndsleyM. R. (1988). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 97-101). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
10.
EndsleyM. R. (1995a). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems, Human Factors, 37, 65-84.
11.
EndsleyM. R. (1995b). Towards a theory of situation awareness in dynamic environments, Human Factors, 37, 32-64.
12.
EndsleyM.BolstadC. A. (1994). Individual differences in pilot situation awareness. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4, 241-264.
13.
EndsleyM. R.BolteB.JonesD. G. (2003). Designing for situation awareness: An approach to user-centered design. New York: Taylor & Francis.
14.
EndsleyM. R.KirisE. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37, 381-394.
15.
FlavellJ. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
16.
KesselC. J.WickensC. D. (1982). The transfer of failure-detection skills between monitoring and controlling dynamic systems. Human Factors, 24, 49-60.
17.
McCarleyJ. S.GosneyJ. (2005). Metacognitive judgments in a simulated luggage screening task. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1620-1624.
18.
MetzgerU.ParasuramanR. (2005). Automation in future air traffic management: Effects of decision aid reliability on controller performance and mental workload. Human Factors, 47, 3549.
19.
MorayN. (1986). Monitoring behavior and supervisory control. In BoffK. (Ed.), Handbook of perception and human performance (pp. 40/1-40/51). New York: Wiley.
20.
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.
21.
SarterN. B.WoodsD. D. (1991). Situation Awareness: A critical but ill-defined phenomenon. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1, 45-57.
22.
SethumadhavanA. (2009). Effects of Automation Types on Air Traffic Controller Situation Awareness and Performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53, 1-5.
23.
ShappellS.A.WiegmannD. A. (2000). The human factors analysis and classification system – HFACS (DOT/FAA/AM-00/7), Washington, DC: Office of Aerospace Medicine, Federal Aviation Administration.
24.
SohnY. W.DoaneS. M. (2004). Memory processes of flight situation awareness: Interactive roles of working memory capacity, long-term working memory, and expertise. Human Factors, 46, 461-475.
25.
SonL. K.MetcalfeJ. (2005). Judgments of learning: Evidence for a two-stage model. Memory and Cognition, 33, 1116-1129.
26.
TaylorR. M. (1990). Situational awareness rating technique (SART): The development of a tool for aircrew systems design. In Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations (AGARD-CP-478; pp. 3/1-3/17). Neuilly Sur Seine, France: NATOAGARD.
27.
WienerE. L.CurryR. E. (1980). Flight deck automation: Promises and problems. Ergonomics, 23, 995-1011.
