In his well-researched and thought-provoking article, David Kaber identifies what he believes to be a number of gaps in the research literature on human–automation interaction (HAI), spanning the spectrum from analysis to modeling and design. One of the central themes in his article is the observation that we have failed to give the phenomenon of satisficing the attention it deserves to usefully design and predict the performance of HAI systems. My purpose in this commentary is to second Kaber’s position on this point, although I suggest that it will be fruitful to view satisficing as just one of many manifestations of the more general phenomenon of adaptive cognition and behavior.
CanellasM. C.FeighK. M. (2016). Toward simple representative mathematical models of naturalistic decision making through fast-and-frugal heuristics. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 10, 255–267.
4.
EndsleyM. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 32–34.
GibsonJ. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
7.
GigerenzerG.BrightonH. (2009). Homo heuristics: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 107–143.
8.
GigerenzerG.SeltenR. (Eds.). (2001). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
HammondK. R. (2006). Foreword. In KirlikA. (Ed.), Adaptive perspectives on human–technology interaction: Methods and models for cognitive engineering and human–computer interaction (pp. vi–x). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
10.
KaberD. (2018). Issues in human–automation interaction modeling: Presumptive aspects of frameworks of types and levels of automation. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 12, 7–24.
11.
KirlikA. (1993). Modeling strategic behavior in human–automation interaction: Why an “aid” can (and should) go unused. Human Factors, 34, 221–242.
12.
KirlikA. (Ed.). (2006a). Adaptive perspectives on human–technology interaction: Methods and models for cognitive engineering and human–computer interaction [inside of book jacket]. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13.
KirlikA. (2006b). Cognitive engineering: Toward a workable concept of mind. In KirlikA. (Ed.), Adaptive perspectives on human–technology interaction: Methods and models for cognitive engineering and human–computer interaction (pp. 3–9). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14.
KirlikA.BertelS. (2010). Decision making under pressure and constraints: Bounded rationality. In CochranJ. J. (Ed.), Wiley encyclopedia of operations research and management science. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470400531.eorms0229/abstract doi:10.1002/9780470400531.eorms0229
15.
KirlikA.MillerR. A.JagacinskiR. J. (1993). Supervisory control in a dynamic uncertain environment: A process model of skilled human–environment interaction. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 23, 929–952.
16.
KirlikA.StraussR. (2006). Situation awareness as judgment I: Theoretical framework, modeling, and quantitative measurement. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36, 463–474.
17.
SimonH. A. (1957). Models of man. New York, NY: Wiley.
