Automation is being implemented in a variety of systems in an effort to improve performance and overcome high operator workload. Current automation approaches may underlie these problems by reducing operator situation awareness. Evidence suggests that in many ways current automation approaches fail to achieve the desired reduction in workload, yet the prevailing approach to system design is still to automate to reduce workload. An alternate design approach is presented that focuses on utilizing intermediate levels of automation (LOA) that integrate the human and the automated system in substantially different ways. Three studies are examined that explore the effects of LOA on performance, situation awareness and workload under normal and failure conditions. Intermediate LOAs were found to significantly enhance SA and performance as compared to full automation or purely manual performance. Factors that determine when automation may be advantageous and when it may be detrimental are revealed through this systsematic exploration of design options for combining humans and automated systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BainbridgeL. (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19, 775–779.
2.
BeckerA. B.WarmJ. S.DemberW. N. (1991). Effects of feedback on perceived workload in vigilance performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting (pp. 1491–1494). Santa Monica, CA: Human factors Society.
3.
BillingsC. E. (1988). Toward human centered automation. In NormanS. D.OrladyH. W. (Eds.), Flight deck automation: Promises and realities (pp. 167–190). Moffet Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center.
4.
BillingsC. E. (1991). Human-centered aircraft automation: A concept and guidelines (NASA Technical Memorandum 103885). Moffet Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
5.
CarmodyM. A.GluckmanJ. P. (1993). Task specific effects of automation and automation failure on performance, workload and situational awareness. In JensenR. S.NeumeisterD. (Ed.), Proccedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 167–171). Columbus, OH: Department of Aviation, The Ohio State University.
6.
DittmarM. L.WarmJ. S.DemberW. N.RicksD. F. (1993). Sex differences in vigilance performance and perceived workload. The Journal of General Psychology, 120(3), 309–322.
7.
EndsleyM. (1987). The application of human factors to the development of expert systems for advanced cockpits. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting (pp. 1388–1392). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
8.
EndsleyM. R. (1996). Automation and situation awareness. In ParasuramanR.MoulouaM. (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 163–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
EndsleyM. R.KaberD. B. (in review). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task.
10.
EndsleyM. R.KirisE. O. (1995). The out-of-the loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37(2), 381–394.
11.
GalinskyT. L.RosaR. R.WarmJ. S.DemberW. N. (1993). Psychophysical determinants of stress in sustained attention. Human Factors, 35(4), 603–614.
12.
HarrisW. C.GoernertP. N.HancockP. A.ArthurE. (1994). The comparative effectiveness of adaptive automation and operator initiated automation during anticipated and unanticipated taskload increases. In MoulouaM.ParasuramanR. (Eds.), Human performance in automated systems: Current research and trends (pp. 40–44). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
13.
HartS. G.SheridanT. B. (1984). Pilot workload, performance, and aircraft control automation. In Human factors considerations in high performance aircraft (AGARD-CP-371) (pp. 18/1–18/12). Neuilly Sur Seine, France: NATO-AG ARD.
14.
McClumphaA.JamesM. (1994). Understanding automated aircraft. In MoulouaM.ParasuramanR. (Eds.), Human performance in automated systems: Current research and trends (pp. 183–190). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
15.
National Transportation Safety Board (1990). Aircraft accidents report: USAIR, Inc., Boeing 737–400, LaGuardia Airport, Flushing New York, September 20, 1989 (NTSB/AAR 90–03). Washington, DC.: Author.
16.
NormanD. A. (1989). The problem of automation: Inappropriate feedback and interaction not overautomation (ICS Report 8904). La Jolla, CA: Institute for Cognitive Science, U. C. San Diego.
17.
OnalE.KaberD. K.EndsleyM. R. (1997). Level of automation effects on human performance in teleopcrations. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University.
18.
ParasuramanR.BahriT.DeatonJ. E.MorrisonJ. G.BarnesM. (1992). Theory and design of adaptive automation in aviation systems (AWCADWAR-92033-60). Warminster, PA: Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division.
19.
RileyV. (1994). A theory of operator reliance on automation. In MoulouaM.ParasuramanR. (Eds.), Human performance in automated systems: Current research and trends (pp. 8–14). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
20.
ScerboM. W.GreenwaldC. Q.SawinD. A. (1993). The effect of subject-controlled pacing and task type on sustained attention and subjective workload. The Journal of General Psychology, 120(3), 293–307.
21.
SheridanT. B.VerplanckW. L. (1978). Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Man-Machine Laboratory.
22.
WickensC. D. (1992). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
23.
WienerE. L. (1985). Cockpit automation: In need of a philosophy. Proceedings of the 1985 Behavioral Engineering Conference (pp. 369–375). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
24.
WienerE. L. (1988). Cockpit automation. In WienerE. L.NagelD. C. (Eds.), Human Factors in Aviation (pp. 433–461). San Diego: Academic Press.
25.
WienerE. L. (1989). Human factors of advanced technology (“glass cockpit”) transport aircraft (NASA Contractor Report No. 177528). Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center.
26.
WienerE. L.CurryR. E. (1980). Flight deck automation: Promises and problems. Ergonomics, 23(10), 995–1011.
