Three aspects of Kaber’s paper are discussed: (a) the origins of the level-of-automation concept as related to various misconceptions in the literature regarding the intent of the original paper; (b) distinctions between descriptive, predictive, presumptive, and normative models; and (c) the difficulty, even impossibility, of making level-of-automation taxonomies into readily useful tools for system design.
BellD. E.RaiffaH.TverskyA. (Eds.). (1988). Decision making: Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
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.
3.
SheridanT. B. (1976). Toward a general model of supervisory control. In SheridanT.JohannsenG. (Eds.), Monitoring behavior and supervisory control (pp. 271–281). New York, NY: Plenum.
4.
SheridanT. B. (2000). Function allocation: Algorithm, alchemy or apostasy?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52, 203–216.
5.
SheridanT. B. (2011). Adaptive automation, level of automation, allocation authority, supervisory control, and adaptive control: Distinctions and modes of adaptation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics–Part A: Systems and Humans, 41, 662–667.
6.
SheridanT. B. (2017). Modeling human–system interactions: Philosophical and methodological considerations, with examples. New York, NY: Wiley.
7.
SheridanT. B.VerplankW. L. (1978). Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Man-Machine Systems Laboratory.
8.
Society of Automotive Engineers. (2014). Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to on-road motor vehicle automated driving systems (SAE Report J3016). Warrendale, PA: Author.
