Effects of Task Duration and Type of Automation Support on Human Performance and Stress in a Simulated Battlefield Engagement Task

Abstract

Automation that is meant to assist the operator by reducing stress and workload may actually increase both. Automation can be imperfect, and as a result may add to uncertainty and degrade performance when it fails. In a complex and dynamic task environment, this may lead to increased stress, which in turn may be associated with inefficient use of automation. The present study examined the relative benefits and costs of imperfect information and decision automation in a simulated battlefield engagement task. Performance and stress were evaluated for short- (10 minutes) and long-durations (30 minutes) of the task. The cost of unreliable aiding—a decrease in accuracy of appropriate target engagement selection—was greater for the decision automation than for information automation, irrespective of task length. Unreliability also slowed response times more for decision than for information automation, but only when the task was long. Subjective reports of stress also increased in the longer automated conditions. The results show that automated decision aids can improve performance when reliable. However, the price of imperfect decision automation is reduced accuracy and increased stress compared to information automation, particularly when the task must be performed for long periods.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Crocoll

W. M.

Coury

B. G.

(1990). Status or recommendation: Selecting the type of information for decision aiding. Proceedings of the 34^th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 1524–1528, Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.

Furukawa

Parasuraman

(2003). Supporting system-centered view of operators through ecological interface design: Two experiments on human-centered automation. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.

Galster

S. M.

Bolia

R. S.

Roe

M. M.

Parasuraman

(2001). Effects of automated cueing on decision implementation in a visual search task. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 321–326, Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.

Galster

Bolia

R. S.

Parasuraman

(2002). Effects of information automation and decision-aiding cueing on action implementation in a visual search task. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 438–442, Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.

Hancock

P. A.

Mortimer

D. Cleve

. (2002). Decision errors under stress. Unpublished Technical Report, University of Central Florida, pp. 1–51.

Lee

Moray

(1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243–1270.

Lee

Moray

(1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 40, 153–184.

Lorenz

Di Nocera

Rottger

Parasuraman

(2002a). Automated fault-management in a simulated space flight micro-world. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 73, 886–897.

Lorenz

Di Nocera

Parasuraman

(2002b). Display integration enhances information sampling and decision making in automated fault management in a simulated space flight micro-world. In Proceedings of the 46^th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society, pp.31–35, Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.

10.

Matthews

Campbell

S. E.

Falconer

(2001). Assessment of motivational states in performance environments. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 906–910.

11.

Matthews

Joyner

Gilliland

Campbell

Falconer

Huggins

(1999). Validation of a comprehensive stress state questionnaire: Towards a state “big three”? In Mervielde

Deary

I. J.

DeFruyt

Ostendorf

(eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 335–350). Tilberg, Netherlands: Tilberg University Press.

12.

NASA Ames Research Center (1986). NASA Task Load Index (TLX): Paper and Pencil Version. Moffet Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center Aerospace Human Factors Research Division.

13.

Parasuraman

Riley

(1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.

14.

Parasuraman

Sheridan

T. B.

Wickens

C. D.

(2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, & Cybernetics, 30, 286–297.

15.

Rovira

McGarry

Parasuraman

(2002a). Effects of unreliable automation on decision making in command and control. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 428–432, Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.

16.

Rovira

Zinni

Parasuraman

(2002b). Effects of information and decision automation on multitask performance. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 327–331, Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.

17.

Sarter

Schroeder

B. K.

(2001). Supporting decision-making and action selection under time pressure and uncertainty: The case of in-flight icing. Human Factors, 43(4), 573–583.

18.

Temple

J. G.

Warm

J. S.

Dember

W. M.

Jones

K. S.

LaGrange

C. M.

Matthews

(2000). The effects of signal salience and caffeine on performance, workload, and stress in an abbreviated vigilance task. Human Factors, 42, 183–194.

19.

Wickens

C. D.

(2002). Automation trust, reliability and attention. Technical Report AHFD-02-14/MAAD-02-2. Aviation Human Factors Division, Institute of Aviation; Savoy, IL.