This paper responds to Kaber’s reflections on the empirical grounding and design utility of the levels-of-automation (LOA) framework. We discuss the suitability of the existing human performance data for supporting design decisions in complex work environments. We question why human factors design guidance seems wedded to a model of questionable predictive value. We challenge the belief that LOA frameworks offer useful input to the design and operation of highly automated systems. Finally, we seek to expand the design space for human–automation interaction beyond the familiar human factors constructs. Taken together, our positions paint LOA frameworks as abstractions suffering a crisis of confidence that Kaber’s remedies cannot restore.
AbbottK.McKenneyD.RailsbackP. (2013). Operational use of flight path management systems: Final report of the Performance-based operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee/Commercial Aviation Safety Team, Flight Deck Automation Working Group. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.
2.
BurnsC. M.SkraaningG.Jr.JamiesonG. A.LauN.KwokJ.WelchR.AndresenG. (2008). Evaluation of ecological interface design for nuclear process control: Situation awareness effects. Human Factors, 50, 663–679.
CalhounG. L.DraperM. H.RuffH. A. (2009). Effect of level of automation on unmanned aerial vehicle routing task. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting (pp. 197–201). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
5.
ChristoffersenK.WoodsD. D. (2002). How to make automated systems team players. In SalasE. (Series Ed.), Advances in human performance and cognitive engineering research (pp. 1–12). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
6.
CummingsM. L.MitchellP. J. (2007). Operator scheduling strategies in supervisory control of multiple UAVs. Aerospace Science and Technology, 11, 339–348.
7.
DekkerS. W.WoodsD. D. (2002). MABA-MABA or abracadabra? Progress on human–automation co-ordination. Cognition, Technology & Work, 4, 240–244.
8.
EndsleyM. R.KaberD. B. (1999). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics, 42, 462–492.
9.
FittsP. M. (Ed.). (1951). Human engineering for an effective air navigation and traffic control system. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
10.
FuldR. B. (2000). The fiction of function allocation, revisited. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 52, 217–233.
11.
GuerlainS.JamiesonG. A.BullemerP.BlairR. (2002). The MPC elucidator: A case study in the design for human–automation interaction. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans, 32, 25–40.
12.
HurlenL.SkraaningG.MyersW. P.JamiesonG. A.CarlsonH. (2015). The plant panel: Feasibility study of an interactive large screen concept for process monitoring and operation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Plant Instrumentation, Control & Human–Machine Interface Technologies. La Grange Park, IL: American Nuclear Society.
JordanN. (1963). Allocation of functions between man and machines in automated systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 161.
15.
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.
16.
LauN.JamiesonG. A.SkraaningG.Jr.(2014). Inter-rater reliability of query/probe-based techniques for measuring situation awareness. Ergonomics, 57, 959–972.
17.
LauN.JamiesonG. A.SkraaningG.Jr. (2016a). Empirical evaluation of the process overview measure for assessing for assessing situation awareness in process plants. Ergonomics, 59, 393–408.
18.
LauN.JamiesonG. A.SkraaningG.Jr.(2016b). Situation awareness acquired from monitoring process plants: The process overview concept and measure. Ergonomics, 59, 976–988.
19.
LauN.JamiesonG. A.SkraaningG.Jr.BurnsC. M. (2008). Ecological interface design in the nuclear domain: An empirical evaluation of ecological displays for the secondary subsystems of a boiling water reactor plant simulator. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 55, 3597–3610.
20.
LauN.VelandO.KwokJ.JamiesonG. A.BurnsC. M.BrasethA. O.WelchR. (2008). Ecological interface design in the nuclear domain: An application to the secondary subsystems of a boiling water reactor plant simulator. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 55, 3579–3596.
21.
LiH.WickensC. D.SarterN.SebokA. (2014). Stages and levels of automation in support of space teleoperations. Human Factors, 56, 1050–1061.
22.
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.
23.
OnnaschL.WickensC. D.LiH.ManzeyD. (2014). Human performance consequences of stages and levels of automation: An integrated meta-analysis. Human Factors, 56, 476–488.
24.
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, 286–297.
25.
PerrowC. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high risk systems. New York, NY: Basic Books.
26.
PriceH. E. (1985). The allocation of functions in systems. Human Factors, 27, 33–45.
27.
RouseW. B. (1988). Adaptive aiding for human/computer control.Human Factors, 30, 431–443.
28.
SAE. (2014). Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to on-road motor vehicle automated driving systems (Standard J3016). Warrendale, PA: SAE International.
29.
SarterN. B.SchroederB. (2001). Supporting decision making and action selection under time pressure and uncertainty: The case of in-flight icing. Human Factors, 43, 573–583.
30.
SarterN. B.WoodsD. D. (1997). Team play with a powerful and independent agent: Operational experiences and automation surprises on the Airbus A-320. Human Factors, 39, 553–569.
31.
SheridanT. B. (2000). Function allocation: Algorithm, alchemy or apostasy?International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 52, 203–216.
32.
SheridanT. B.VerplankW. L. (1978). Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Man–Machine Systems Lab.
33.
SkraaningG.Jr.HurlenL.LeDarzP.JamiesonG. A. (2016). Feasibility study of an interactive large screen concept for automated plant start-up (HWR-1179). Halden, Norway: OECD Halden Reactor Project.
34.
SkraaningG.JamiesonG. A. (2017). Twenty years of HRP research on human–automation interaction: Insights on automation transparency and levels of automation. OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, Norway.
