Why is it important to understand human behavior in automated environments? The performance of a human-automation system is a product of the quality of the support provided by the automation and the manner in which that support is used by the human. Therefore, the solution to reaching an optimal level of system performance does not lie exclusively within possible improvements to technological components, but also by understanding the interaction of humans with automated agents. A conceptual model of human-automation interaction is presented in this paper. The model includes most of the well-established variable relationships to date, as well as a brief description of the literature that supports each relationship.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaileyN. R. (2004). The effects of operator trust, complacency potential, and task complexity on monitoring a highly reliable automated system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University, Virginia
2.
BlissJ. P.DunnM. C. (2000). Behavioural implications of alarm mistrust as a function of task workload. Ergonomics, 43, 1283–1300.
3.
BlissJ. P.DunnM.FullerB. (1995). Reversal of the cry-wolf effect: An investigation of two methods to increase alarm response rates. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 1231–1242.
4.
BlissJ. P.GilsonR. D.DeatonJ. E. (1995). Human probability matching behaviour in response to alarms of varying reliability. Ergonomics, 38, 2300–2312.
5.
BlissJ. P.McAbeeP. E. (1995). Alarm responses in a dual-task paradigm as a function of primary task criticality. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 39th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA, 1395–1399.
6.
ClamannM. P.WrightM. C.KaberD. B. (2002). Comparison of performance effects of adaptive automation applied to various stages of human-machine system information processing. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA, 342–346.
7.
DzindoletM. T.PierceL. G.BeckH. P.DaweL. A.AndersonB. W. (2001). Predicting misuse and disuse of combat identification systems. Military Psychology, 13, 147–164
8.
DzindoletM. T.PierceL.PetersonS.PurcellL.BeckH. (2002). The influence of feedback on automation use, misuse, and disuse. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
9.
DzindoletM. T.PetersonS. A.PomrankyR. A.PierceL. G.BeckH. P. (2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Computer Studies, 58, 697–718.
10.
EndsleyM. R.KaberD. B. (1999). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics, 42, 462–492.
11.
HorreyW. J.WickensC. D. (2001). Supporting situation assessment through attention guidance: A cost-benefit and depth-of-processing. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors & Ergonomics Society.
12.
KantowitzB. H.HanowskiR. J.KantowitzS. C. (1997). Driver reliability requirements for traffic advisory information. In NoyY. I.Ergonomics and Safety of Intelligent Driver Interfaces (pp. 1–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1992). Trust, control strategies, and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243–1270.
14.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1994). Trust, self-confidence and operator's adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 40, 153–184
15.
LewandowskyS.MundyM.TanG. P. A. (2000). The dynamics of trust: Comparing humans to automation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 104–123
16.
MadhavanP.WiegmannD. A.LacsonF. C. (2003). Automation failures on tasks easily performed by operators undermines trust in automated aids. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 47th annual meeting, Santa Monica, CA, 438–442
17.
McFaddenS. M.GiesbrechtB. L.GulaB. A. (1998). Use of an automatic tracker as a function of its reliability, Ergonomics, 41, 512–536.
18.
MeyerJ. (2004). Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings. Human Factors, 46, 196–204.
19.
MolloyR.ParasuramanR. (1996). Monitoring an automated system for a single failure: Vigilance and task complexity effects. Human Factors, 38, 311–322
20.
MorayN.InagakiT.ItohM. (2000). Adaptive atomation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 44–58.
21.
MuirB. M.MorayN. (1996). Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39, 429–460
22.
O'DonnellR. D.EggemeierF. T. (1986). Workload assessment methodology. In BoffK. R.KauffmanL.ThomasJ., Handbook of perception and human performance: Volume II. Cognitive processes and performance. New York: John Wiley
23.
ParasuramanR.GiambraL. (1991). Skill development in vigilance: Effects of event rate and age. Psychology and Aging, 6, 155–169
24.
ParasuramanR.MolloyR.SinghI. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced “complacency.”The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 1–23.
25.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, & Cybernetics, 30, 286–297.
26.
RileyV. (1996). Operator reliance on automation: Theory and data. In ParasuramanR.MoulouaM., Automation and human performance (pp. 19–36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
27.
RoviraE.ZinniM.ParasuramanR. (2002). Effects of information and decision automation on multi-task performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA, 327–331.
28.
SanchezJ.FiskA. D.RogersW. A. (2004). Reliability and age-related effects on trust and reliance of a decision support aid. Proceedings of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA
29.
SarterN. B.SchroederB. (2001). Supporting decision making and action selection under time pressure and uncertainty: The case of in-flighticing. Human Factors, 43(4), 573–583
30.
SkitkaL. J.MosierK. L.BurdickM. (1999). Does automation bias decision-making?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 51, 991–1006.
31.
SorkinR. D.WoodsD. D. (1985). Systems with human monitors: A signal detection analysis. Human Computer Interaction. 1, 49–75.
32.
StantonN. A.YoungM. S. (1998). Vehicle automation and driving performance. Ergonomics, 41, 1014–1028.
33.
VriesP.MiddenC.BouwhuisD. (2003). The effects of errors on system trust, self-confidence, and the allocation of control in route planning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 719–735.
34.
WickensC. D.DixonS. R. (2005). Is there a magic number 7 (to the minus 1)? The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Technical Report AHFD-05–01/MAAD-05–01. Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Human Factors Division.
35.
WickensC. D.XuX. (2002). Automation trust, reliability and attention. Institute of Aviation Tech. Report AHFD-02–14/MAAD-02–2. Savoy: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Lab.
36.
WiegmannD. A.RichA.ZhangH. (2001). Automated diagnostic aids: The effects of aid reliability on users' trust and reliance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2, 352–367
37.
XuX.WickensC. D.RantanenE. (2004) Imperfect conflicting alerting systems for cockpit display of traffic information. Technical Report AHFD-04–8/NASA-04–2. Savoy: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Lab.
