Function allocation between human and automation can be represented in terms of the stages & levels taxonomy proposed by Parasuraman, Sheridan & Wickens (2000). Higher degrees of automation (DOA) are achieved both by later stages (e.g., automation decision aiding rather than diagnostic aiding) and higher levels within stages (e.g. executing a choice unless vetoed, versus offering the human several choices). A meta analysis based on data of 14 experiments examines the mediating effects of DOA on routine system performance, performance when the automation fails, workload and situation awareness. The effects of DOA on these four measures are summarized by level of statistical significance. We found: (1) an inverse relationship between routine performance and workload as automation is introduced and DOA increases. (2) a weak positive relationship between routine performance and failure performance, as mediated by DOA. (3) A strong mediating role of situation awareness in improving both routine and failure performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BahnerE.J.HuperA. D.ManzeyD. (2008). Misuse of automated decision aids: Complacency, automation bias and training experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66 (9), 688–699.
2.
BainbridgeL. (1983). Ironies of Automation. Automatica, 19, 776–779.
3.
CalhounG. L.DraperM. K.RuffH. A. (2009). Effect of Level of Automation on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Routing Task. In Proceedings Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting (pp. 197–201). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
4.
CrocollW. M.CouryB. G. (1990). Status or recommendation: selecting the type of information for decision aiding. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting (pp. 1524–1528). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
5.
CummingsM.L.MitchellP.J. (2007). Operator scheduling strategies in supervisory control of multiple UAVs. Aerospace Science and Technology, 11(4), 339–348.
6.
DekkerS. W. A.WoodsD. D. (2002). MABA-MABA or abradacabra? Progress on human-automation coordination. Cognition, Technology, and Work, 4, 240–244.
7.
DixonS. R.WickensC. D. (2006). Automation reliability in unmanned aerial vehicle flight control. Human Factors, 48 (3), 474–486.
8.
EndsleyKaber, 1999. Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics, 42(3), 462–492.
9.
EndsleyM. R.KirisE. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37(2), 387–394.
10.
FaddenS.VerversP.WickensC.D. (1998). Costs and benefits of head-up display use: A meta-analytic approach. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
11.
HorreyW. J.WickensC. D. (2006). Examining the impact of cell phone conversations on driving using meta-analytic techniques. Human Factors, 48(1), 196–205.
12.
KaberD. B.OnalE.EndsleyM. R. (2000). Design of Automation for Telerobots and the Effect on Performance, Operator Situation Awareness, and Subjective Workload. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing10(4), 409–430.
13.
LinC. J.YennT.YangC. (2009). Automation design in advanced control rooms of the nuclear power plants. Safety Science.48 (1), 63–71.
14.
LorenzB.Di NoceraF.RöttgerS.ParasuramanR. (2001) The Effects of Level of Automation on the Out-Of-The-Loop Unfamiliarity. Proceedings Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
15.
ManzeyD.ReichenbachJ.OnnaschL. (2008). Performance consequences of automated aids in process control: The impact of function allocation. In Proceedings of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 52nd Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors.
16.
ManzeyD.ReichenbachJ.OnnaschL. (2009). Human performance consequences of automated decision aids in the states of fatigue. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors.
17.
MetzgerU.ParasuramanR. (2005). Automation in future air traffic management: Effects of decision aid reliability on controller performance and mental workload. Human Factors, 47 (1), 35–49.
18.
MolloyR.ParasuramanR. (1996). Monitoring an automated system for a single failure: Vigilance and task complexity effectsHuman Factors, 38, 311–322.
19.
ParasuramanR.MolloyR.SinghI. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced “complacency”. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 1–23.
20.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997), Humans and Automation: Use, misue, disuse and abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.
21.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC.D. (2000). A model of types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics — Part A: 30, 286–297.
RosenthalR. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, Cal.: Sage.
24.
RottgerS.BaliK.ManzeyD. (2009). Impact of automated decision aids on performance, operator behaviour and workload in a simulated supervisory control task. Ergonomics, 52 (5), 512–523.
25.
RoviraE.McGarryK.ParasuramanR. (2007). Effects of Imperfect Automation on Decision Making in a Simulated Command and Control Task. Human Factors, 49(1), 76–87.
26.
SarterN. B.SchroederB. (2001). Supporting Decision Making and Action Selection under Time Pressure and Uncertainty: The Case of In-Flight Icing. Human Factors, 43(5), 573–583.
27.
SethumadhavanA. (2009). Effects of Automation Types on Air Traffic Controller Situation Awareness and Performance. Proceedings Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors.
28.
SheridanT. B. (2002). Humans and automation: Systems design and research issues. New York: Wiley.
29.
SheridanT. B.ParasuramanR. (2000). Human vs. automation in responding to failures. Human Factors, 42, 403–407.
30.
SheridanT. B.VerplankW. L. (1978). Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. (Technical Report). Cambridge, MA: Man Machine Systems Laboratory, MIT.
31.
WickensC.D. (2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors Golden Anniversary Special Issue, 3, 449–455.
32.
WickensC. D.DixonS. R. (2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science8, 201–212.
33.
WienerE. L.CurryR. E. (1980). Flight-deck automation: Promises and problems. Ergonomics, 23, 995–1011.
34.
WrightM.C.KaberD.B. (2005). Effects of automation of information-processing functions on teamwork. Human Factors, 47 (1), 50–66.
35.
YehM.MerloJ.L.WickensC.D.BrandenburgD.L. (2003). Head up vs. head down: Costs of imprecision, unreliability, and visual clutter on cue effectiveness for display signaling. Human Factors, 45(3), 390–407.
