This study examined how the degree of automation provided during training and the general intelligence of the learner operate to influence task learning, and transfer to a no automation environment. An experiment was conducted using the Pasteuriser simulation, with participants assigned to one of three training groups: manual control, user-initiated automation, or automatically-initiated automation. The presence of automation facilitated initial training performance, but hindered performance later in training. When automation support was removed, costs were seen for those trained with automatically-initiated automation. An aptitude-automation interaction was observed, such that automation reduced the relationship between trainee intelligence and training performance. These results suggest that the effectiveness of automation in training will vary not only by the type of automation and the task, but also by the aptitude of the operator.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AckermanP. L. (1988). Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: Cognitive abilities & information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 288–318.
2.
BainbridgeL. (1983) Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19, 755–779.
3.
BillingsC. E. (1991). Human-centered aircraft automation: A concept and guidelines (NASA Technical Memorandum 103885). Moffet Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
4.
BillingsC. E. (1997). Aviation automation: The search for a human centered approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
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 46th Annual Meeting, 342–346. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
6.
CronbachL. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.
7.
EckstromR. B.FrenchJ. W.HarmanH. H.DermenD. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
8.
EndsleyM. R.KaberD. B. (1999). Level of automation effects on performance, situational 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 and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37, 381–394.
10.
GoskaR.E.AckermanP.L. (1996). An aptitude-treatment interaction approach to transfer within training. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 249–259.
11.
KaberD. B.EndsleyM. R. (2004). The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5(2), 113–153.
12.
KaberD. B.OnalE.EndsleyM. R. (2000). Design of automation for telerobots & the effect of performance, operator situational awareness, & subjective workload. Human Factors & Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 10, 409–430.
13.
LeeJ. D. (1992). Trust, self confidence and operators' adaptation to automation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
14.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1992) Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243–1270.
15.
LiuD.WassonR.VincenziD. A. (2009). Effects of system automation management strategies and multi-mission operator-to-vehicle ratio on operator performance in UAV systems. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 54(5), 795–810.
16.
MorayN. (1986). Monitoring behaviour and supervisory control. In BoffK. R.KaufmanL.ThomasJ. P., (Eds), Handbook of Perception and Human Performance. New York: Wiley.
17.
MorayN.RodriguezD.CleggB. A. (2000). Levels of automation in process control. Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. San Diego, California, July 30th-August 4th 2000.
18.
MuirB. M.MorayN. (1996). Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39(3), 429–461.
19.
OlsonW. A.SarterN.B. (2001). Management-by-consent in human-machine systems: When and why it breaks down. Human Factors, 43(2), 255–266.
20.
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: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286–297.
21.
RuffH. A.NarayananS.DraperM. (2002). Human interaction with levels of automation and decision aid fidelity in the supervisory control of multiple simulated teleoperated air vehicles. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 11(4), 335–351.
22.
SheridanT. B.VerplanckW. L. (1978). Human and Computer Control of Undersea Teleoperators. Technical report, Man-Machine Systems Laboratory, Department of mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
23.
SnowR. E. (1989) aptitude-treatment interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in learning. In AckermanP.L.SternbergR.J.GlaserR. (Eds.), Learning & individual differences: Advances in theory & research (pp. 13–58). NY: Freeman.
24.
WienerE. L.CurryR. E. (1980). Flight-deck automation: promises and problems. Ergonomics, 23, 995–1011.
