Displaying both the strategy that information analysis automation employs to makes its judgments and variability in the task environment may improve human judgment performance, especially in cases where this variability impacts the judgment performance of the information analysis automation. This work investigated the contribution of providing either information analysis automation strategy information, task environment information, or both, on human judgment performance in a domain where noisy sensor data are used by both the human and the information analysis automation to make judgments. In a simplified air traffic conflict prediction experiment, 32 participants made probability of horizontal conflict judgments under different display content conditions. After being exposed to the information analysis automation, judgment achievement significantly improved for all participants as compared to judgments without any of the automation’s information. Participants provided with additional display content pertaining to cue variability in the task environment had significantly higher aided judgment achievement compared to those provided with only the automation’s judgment of a probability of conflict. When designing information analysis automation for environments where the automation’s judgment achievement is impacted by noisy environmental data, it may be beneficial to show additional task environment information to the human judge in order to improve judgment performance.
BalzerW. K.DohertyM. E.O’ConnorR. (1989). Effects of cognitive feedback on performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106(3), 410-433.
2.
BassE. J.PritchettA. R. (2008). Human-Automated Judge Learning: A methodology for examining human interaction with information analysis automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 38(4), 759-776.
3.
BoxG.HunterW. G.HunterJ. S. (1978). Statistics for experimenters: An introduction to design, data analysis, and model building. New York: Wiley.
4.
BrunswikE. (1952). The conceptual framework of psychology. In NeurathO.CarnapR.MorrisC. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of unified science (Vol. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
BrunswikE. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkley: University of California Press.
CookseyR. (1996). Judgment analysis: Theory, methods, and applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
8.
CrocollW. M.CouryB. G. (1990). Status or recommendation: Selecting the type of information for decision aiding. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society (pp. 1524-1528). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society.
9.
de 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(6), 719-735.
10.
DrewsF. A.WestenskowD. R. (2006). The right picture is worth a thousand numbers: Data displays in anesthesia. Human Factors, 48(1), 59-71.
11.
DzindoletM. T.PetersonS. A.PomrankyR. A.PierceL. G.BeckH. P. (2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 697-718.
12.
EndsleyM. R.KirisE. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37(2), 381-394.
13.
EndsleyM. R.KaberD. B. (1999). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics, 42(3), 462-492.
14.
GattieG.BisantzA. (2006). The effects of integrated cognitive feedback components and task conditions on training in a dental diagnosis task. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36(5), 485-497.
15.
HurschC. J.HammondK. R.HurschJ. L. (1964). Some methodological considerations in multiple-cue probability, Psychological Review, 71, 42-60.
16.
KaberD. B.EndsleyM. R. (1997). Out-of-the-loop performance problems and the use of intermediate levels of automation for improved control system functioning and safety. Process Safety Progress, 16(3), 126-131.
17.
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.
18.
KirlikA. (1995). Requirements for psychological models to support design: Towards ecological task analysis. In FlachJ. M.HancockP. A.CairdJ. K.VicenteK. J. (Eds.), Global perspectives on the ecology of human–machine systems (Vol. 1, pp. 68-120). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
LeeJ.MorayN. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators’ adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(1), 153-184.
20.
LorenzB.Di NoceraF.RöttgerS.ParasuramanR. (2002). Automated fault-management in a simulated spaceflight micro-world. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 73(9), 886-897.
21.
MasalonisA. J.ParasuramanR. (2003). Effects of situation-specific reliability on trust and usage of automated air traffic control decision aids. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society (pp. 533-537). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society.
22.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286-297.
23.
PritchettA. R.VandorB. (2001). Designing situation displays to promote conformance to automatic alerts. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society (pp. 311-315). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society.
24.
RoviraE.McGarryK.ParasuramanR. (2007). Effects of imperfect automation on decision making in a simulated command and control task. Human Factors, 49(1), 76.
25.
SarterN. B.SchroederB. (2001). Supporting decision making and action selection under time pressure and uncertainty: The case of in-flight icing. Human Factors, 43(4), 573-583.
26.
SarterN. B.WoodsD. D. (1992). Pilot interaction with cockpit automation: Operational experiences with the flight management system. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 2(4), 303-321.
27.
SarterN. B.WoodsD. D. (1994). Pilot interaction with cockpit automation II: An experimental study of pilots’ model and awareness of the flight management system. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4(1), 1-28.
28.
SeongY.BisantzA. M. (2002). Judgment and trust in conjunction with automated decision aids: A theoretical model and empirical investigation. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society (pp. 423-427). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society.
29.
SeongY.BisantzA. (2008). The impact of cognitive feedback on judgment performance and trust with decision aids. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 38(7-8), 608-625.
30.
SkjerveA.SkraaningG. (2004). The quality of human-automation cooperation in human-system interface for nuclear power plants. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61(5), 649-677.
31.
TuckerL. R. (1964). A suggested alternative formulation in the developments of Hursch, Hammond & Hursch and by Hammond, Hursch & Todd. Psychological Review, 71, 528-530.
32.
VicenteK. J. (2002). Ecological Interface Design: Progress and challenges. Human Factors, 44(1), 62-78.
33.
VicenteK. J.RasmussenJ. (1990). The ecology of human-machine systems II: Mediating “direct perception” in complex work domains. Ecological Psychology, 2(3), 207-249.
34.
WickensC. D.LiH.SantamariaA.SebokA.SarterN. B. (2010). Stages and levels of automation: An integrated meta-analysis. In Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings (pp. 389-393). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society.
35.
WickensC. D.XuX. (2002). Automation trust, reliability and attention, HMI 02 03 (AHDF Technical Report No. AHFD-02- 14/MAAD-02-2). Savoy: University of Illinois, Aviation Human Factors Division.
36.
WoodsD. D. (1991). The cognitive engineering of problem representation. In WeirG. R. S.AltyJ. L. (Eds.), Human–computer interaction in complex systems (pp. 169-188). New York: Academic Press.
