Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Humans are often blamed for errors in complex systems. A number of taxonomies exist for classifying human errors, but recent doubts have been raised as to whether these are actually errors or simply processes involved in both correct and incorrect decisions. A field test was designed to address some of these issues. During the field test, three geologists made assessments about the recent and past environment based on robotically collected data. The decisions were classified based on previous error taxonomy. Each conclusion was then checked for accuracy. From this data, the error rate for specific behaviors could be calculated. The results indicate many of the behaviors describe earlier as erroneous actually produce correct decisions most of the time. One behavior is singled out as producing a majority of the errors and further research is needed to better understand its causes.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Danaher

J. W.

(1980). Human Error in ATC Systems Operations. Human Factors, 22(5), 535–545.

Hobbs

William

(2002). Skills, rules and knowledge in aircraft maintenance: Errors in context. Ergonomics, 45(4): 290–308.

Hollnagel

(1993). The phenotype of erroneous actions. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 1–32.

Lee

K. W.

Tillman

F. A.

Higgins

J. J.

(1988). A literature survey of the human reliability component in a man-machine system. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 37(1), 24–34.

Norman

D. A.

(1993). Things that make us smart: Defending human attributes in the age of the machine. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Rasmussen

(1987). The Definition of Human Error and a Taxonomy for Technical System Design. In Rasmussen

Duncan

Leplat

(Eds.), New Technology and Human Error (pp. 23–30). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Rasmussen

(1993). Deciding and doing: Decision making in natural contexts. Decision making in Action: Models and Methods. Klein

G. A.

Oransanu

Calderwood

Zsambok

C. E.

. Norwood, NJ, Ablex Publishing Corp.: 158–171.

Reason

(1990). Human Error. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Richei

Hauptmanns

Unger

(2001). The human error rate assessment and optimizing system HEROS – a new procedure for evaluating and optimizing the man – machine interface in PSA. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 72, 153–164.

10.

Ross

Sicoly

(1982). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. In Kahneman

Slovic

Tversky

(Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11.

Sugarman

(1979). Nuclear power and the public risk. IEEE spectrum, 16(11), 59–79.

12.

Taylor

S. E.

(1982). The availability bias in social perception and interaction. In Kahneman

Slovic

Tversky

(Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1974). Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

14.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1982). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. In Kahneman

Slovic

Tversky

(Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Woods

D. D., J., J. L.

Cook

R. I.

Sarter

N. B.

(1994). Behind Human Error; Cognitive Systems, Computers, and Hindsight. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Crew Systems Ergonomics Information Analysis Center.

Error-Associated Behaviors and Error Rates for Robotic Geology

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References