A framework is presented that relates skill-, rule-, and knowledge-based reasoning to expertise and uncertainty. This taxonomy is designed to help people from various technical backgrounds conceptualize functional allocation for autonomous systems that interact with human decision makers in order to better understand potential design implications.
BorstC.FlachJ.EllerbroekJ. (2015). Beyond ecological interface design: Lessons from concerns and misconceptions. IEEE Transactions on Human–Machine Systems, 45, 164–175.
2.
BriscoeE.FeldmanJ. (2011). Conceptual complexity and the bias/variance tradeoff. Cognition, 118, 2–16.
3.
CummingsM. L. (2014). Man vs. machine or man + machine?IEEE Intelligent Systems, 29(5), 62–69.
4.
EndsleyM. R.KaberD. B. (1999). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics, 42, 462–492.
5.
GigerenzerG.ToddP. M.ABC Research Group (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6.
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.
7.
MiottoR.LiL.KiddB. A.DudleyJ. T. (2016). Deep patient: An unsupervised representation to predict the future of patients from the electronic health records. Scientific Reports, 6(26094).
8.
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.
9.
RasmussenJ. (1983). Skills, rules, and knowledge: Signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 13, 257–266.
10.
RothE. M.BennettK. B.WoodsD. D. (1987). Human interaction with an “intelligent” machine. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 27, 479–526.
