Adaptive automation is expected to reduce workload and increase situational awareness; however, these measures can either converge or diverge. Thus, whether the adaptive system improves both, or just one of these, depends on the relationship between these measures for a particular system. By varying the invoking threshold, system designers impact the levels of these measures. This study uses discrete event simulation to characterize the relationship between workload and situational awareness in an adaptive system and finds that the relationship between workload and situational awareness is dependent on the invoking threshold and the level of task load.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaileyN.R.ScerboM.W.FreemanF.G.MikulkaP.J.ScottL.A. (2006). Comparison of a brain-based adaptive system and a manual adaptable system for invoking automation. Hum.Fctrs, 48(4), 693-709.
2.
BierbaumC.R.SzaboS.M.AldrichT.B. (1989). Task analysis of the UH-60 mission and decision rules for developing a UH-60 workload prediction model No. AD-A210763. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
3.
CosenzoK.ChenJ.Reinerman-JonesL.BarnesM.NicholsonD. (2010). Adaptive automation effects on operator performance during a reconnaissance mission with an unmanned ground vehicle. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 2135-2139.
4.
De VisserE. J.ParasuramanR. (2011). Adaptive aiding of human-robot teaming: Effects of imperfect automation on performance, trust, and workload. J. of Cognitive Eng. & Decision Making, 5(2), 209-231.
5.
EndsleyM.R. (1993). Situation awareness and workload: Flip sides of the same coin. In JensenR. S.NeumeisterD. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 906–911.
6.
EndsleyM.R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors37(1), 32–64.
7.
KaberD.B.PerryC.M.SegallN.McclernonC.K.PrinzelL.J. (2006). Situation awareness implications of adaptive automation for information processing in an air traffic control-related task. Int’l J. of Ind. Ergonomics, 36(5), 447-462.
8.
McCrackenJ.H.AldrichT.B. (1984). Analyses of selected LHX mission functions: Implications for operator workload and system automation goals No. ASI 479-024-84. Fork Rucker, AL: U.S. Army Research Institute Aviation Research and Development Activity.
9.
ParasuramanR.CosenzoK.A.De VisserE.J. (2009). Adaptive automation for human supervision of multiple uninhabited vehicles: Effects on change detection, situation awareness, and mental workload. Military Psychology, 21(2), 270-297.
10.
RusnockC.F.GeigerC.D. (2013). Using Discrete-Event Simulation for Cognitive Workload Modeling and System Evaluation. Proceedings of the 2013 Inst. of Ind. Eng. Ind. & Sys. Eng. Research Conference.
11.
WickensC.D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 159-177.
