Automation complacency has been considered by some to result from a state of mindlessness. An attentional framework offered by Parasuraman and Manzey (2010) has suggested that automation bias and complacency may be overlapping functions of the same central cognitive process, with attentional resources as the shared mechanism. Non-invasive brain stimulation methods present novel ways to manipulate attentional resources and influence operator allocation of attention. Study results indicate that positive stimulation affects complex task performance, although not necessarily evenly across task function. Stimulation effects on complacency potential may be modulated by an operator’s automation bias. This has broad implications for interface design, as well cognitive theory of human-automation interaction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BagheriN.JamiesonG. A. (2004). Considering subjective trust and monitoring behavior in assessing automation- induced “complacency.” In VicenziD. A.MoulouaM.HancockO. A. (Eds.), Human performance, situation awareness, and automation: Current research and trends (pp. 54–59). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
BahnerE.HuperA.-D.ManzeyD. (2008). Misuse of automated decision aids: Complacency, automation bias and the impact of training experience. International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, 66, 688–699.
3.
BainbridgeL. (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19, 775–779
4.
CoffmanB. A.ClarkV. P.ParasuramanR. (2014). Battery powered thought: Enhancement of attention, learning, and memory in healthy adults using transcranial Direct Current Stimulation. NeuroImage, 85, 895-908.
5.
FalconeB.CoffmanB.A.ClarkV.P.ParasuramanR. (2012). Transcranial direct current stimulation augments perceptual sensitivity and 24-houre retention in a complex threat detection task. PLoS One, 7 (2012), p. e34993
6.
FiskeS.T.TaylorS.E. (1984). Social Cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
7.
FregniF.BoggioP. S.NitscheM.BermpohlF.AntalA.FeredoesE.… Pascual-LeoneA. (2005). Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of prefrontal cortex enhances working memory. Experimental Brain Research, 166(1), 23-30.
8.
HartS.G.StavelandL.E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP. A.MeshkatiN. (Eds.) Human Mental Workload. Amsterdam: North Holland Press
9.
KaneM.J.EngleR.W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective. Psychnomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 637-671
10.
ManzeyD.ReichenbachJ.OnnaschL. (2008). Human performance consequences of automated decision aids: The impact of degree of automation and system experience. Journal of Cognitve Engineering and Decision-Making, 6(1), 57-87
11.
MetzgerU.ParasuramanR. (2005). Automation in future air traffic management: Effects of decision aid reliability on controller performance and mental workload. Human Factors, 47, 35-49
12.
MillerW.D. (2010). The U.S. air force-developed adaptation of the multi-attribute task battery for the assessment of human operator workload and strategic behavior (Technical report No. AFRL-RH-WP-TR-2010-0133), Wright-Patterson, OH: Air Force Research Lab
13.
MillerW.DBoehm-DavisD.A. (2013). Age-related differences in positional dispersion of fixations in a multitask environment. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 2013, September 30 - October 4.
14.
MolloyR.ParasuramanR. (1996). Monitoring an automated system for a single failure: Vigilance and task complexity effects, Human Factors, 38(2), 311-322.
15.
MorayN.InagakiT. (2000). Attention and complacency. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1, 354–365.
16.
MosierK. L. (2002). Automation and cognition: Maintaining coherence in the electronic cockpit. In SalasE. (Ed.), Advances in human performance and cognitive engineering research: Automation (Vol. 2, pp. 93–122). New York: Elsevier Science
17.
MosierK. L.SkitkaL. J. (1996). Human decision makers and automated decision aids: Made for each other? In ParasuramanR.MoulouaM. (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and application (pp. 201–220). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
18.
NelsonJ.T.McKinleyR.A.GolobE.J.WarmJ.S.ParasuramanR. (2014). Enhancing vigilance in operators with prefrontal cortex transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Neuroimage, 85(3), 909-917.
19.
ParasuramanR. (2011). Neuroergonomics: Brain, cognition, and performance at work. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 181-186.
20.
ParasuramanR.GalsterS. (2013). Sensing, assessing, and augmenting threat detection: behavioral, neuroimaging, and brain stimulation evidence for the critical role of attention. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7: 273. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00273.
21.
ParasuramanR.ManzeyD.H. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors, 52(3), 381-410.
22.
ParasuramanR.MolloyR.SinghI. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced “complacency.”International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 1-23.
23.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253
24.
UnsworthN.HeitzR.P.SchrockJ.C.EngleR.W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 498-505
