The effectiveness of variable-priority training in reducing automation-related complacency was examined. Participants were trained under one of three attention allocation strategies, whole task (WT), part task (PT), or variable priority (VP). They subsequently monitored an automated system while simultaneously performing tracking and fuel management tasks. Eye movements were recorded to investigate attention allocation strategies. Results pointed to a trend for VP training to reduce complacency, compared to WT or PT training. The relationship between performance in each of the three training groups and eye movements to the automated task was inconsistent.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BillingsC. E.LauberJ. K.FunkhouserH.LymanG.HuffE. M. (1976). NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (Tech. Rep. TM-X-3445). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
2.
ComstockJ. R.ArnegardR. J. (1992). The multi-attribute task battery for human operator workload and strategic behavior research. Technical Memorandum 104174. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA.
3.
DuleyJ. A.WestermanS.MolloyR.ParasuramanR. (1997). Effects of display superimposition on monitoring of automation. Proceedings of Ninth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 322–328). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
4.
FarrellS.LewandowskyS. (in press). A connectionist model of complacency and adaptive recovery under automation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
5.
GopherD. (1996). Attention control: explorations of the work of an executive controller. Cognitive Brain Research, 5, 23–38.
6.
GopherD.WeilM.SiegelD. (1989). Practice under changing priorities: An approach to the training of complex skills. Acta Psychologica, 71, 147–177.
7.
KramerA. F.LarishJ. L.WeberT. A.BardellL. (1999). Training for executive control: Task coordination strategies and aging. In GopherD.KoriatA., Attention and Performance XVII Cognitive Regulation of Performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp, 617–652). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
MetzgerU.DuleyJ. A.RoviraE.ParasuramanR. (1999). Training to reduce inefficiencies in monitoring of automated systems. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43nd Annual Meeting (p. 1406). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.
9.
MolloyR.DeatonJ.ParasuramanR. (1995). Monitoring performance with the EMACS display. Proceedings of the Eigth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 68–71). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
10.
MorayN.ParasuramanR. (1999). Attention, monitoring, trust, complacency, skepticism, and eutactic behavior. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Managing Critical Event Systems: Interruptions and Alerts. Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research.
11.
ParasuramanR.MolloyR.SinghI. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced “complacency”. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3 (1), 1–23.
12.
ParasuramanR.MoulouaM.MolloyR. (1996). Effects of adaptive task allocation on monitoring of automated systems. Human Factors, 38, 665–679.
