This “reflections” piece identifies major themes emerging from the commentaries in the issue. I discuss how some existing issues with the levels of automation (LOAs) approach may be further resolved as well as how different perspectives can lead to richer human-automation interaction (HAI) model development. The overarching objective here is to offer some reflections and last thoughts on the overall discussion of LOA issues, but of course, there may be some concerns on which some researchers may need to “agree to disagree.” Related to this, there are a few observations in the commentaries that I respond to with points of fact. Lastly, I suggest a set of future research directions based on several methodological recommendations by commentators as well as my own perspective on what is needed in HAI modeling to move forward.
BoltonM. L.BassE. J. (2011). Evaluating human-automation interaction using task analytic behavior models, strategic knowledge-based erroneous human behavior generation, and model checking. In 2011 IEEE Conference on Systems, Man & Cybernetics (pp. 1788–1794). Piscaway, NJ: IEEE.
2.
BurnsC. (2018). Automation and the human factors race to catch up. Journal of Cognitive Engineering & Decision Making, 12, 83–85.
3.
ByrneE. (2018). Knowing behavior helps insure models against breakage. A commentary on Kaber’s “Issues in human–automation interaction modeling.”Journal of Cognitive Engineering & Decision Making, 12, 67–69.
4.
ChenJ. Y.ProcciK.BoyceM.WrightJ. A.GarciaA.BarnesM. (2014). Situation awareness-based agent transparency (ARL-TR-6905). Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD: Army Research Laboratory.
5.
EndsleyM. R. (2017). From here to autonomy. Human Factors, 59, 5–27.
6.
EndsleyM. R. (2018). Level of automation forms a key aspect of autonomy design. Journal of Cognitive Engineering & Decision Making, 12, 29–34.
7.
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.
8.
FeighK. M.DorneichM. C.HayesC. C. (2012). Towards a characterization of adaptive systems: A framework for researchers and system designers. Human Factors, 54, 1008–1024.
9.
JamiesonG.SkraaningG. (2018). Levels of automation: Why we might consider throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Journal of Cognitive Engineering & Decision Making, 12, 42–49.
10.
JohnsonM.BradshawJ.FeltovichP. (2018). Tomorrow’s human-machine design tools: From levels of automation to interdependencies. Journal of Cognitive Engineering & Decision Making, 12, 77–82.
11.
KaberD. B. (2018). Issues in human–automation interaction modeling: Presumptive aspects of frameworks of types and levels of automation. Journal of Cognitive Engineering & Decision Making, 12, 7–24.
12.
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.
13.
KaberD. B.OnalE.EndsleyM. R. (2000). Design of automation for telerobots and the effect on performance, operator situation awareness and subjective workload. Human Factors & Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 10, 409–430.
14.
KaberD. B.WrightM. C.Sheik-NainarM. (2006). Multimodal interface design for adaptive automation of a human-robot system. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 527–540.
15.
KirlikA. (2018). Automation and adaptive behavior. Journal of Cognitive Engineering & Decision Making, 12, 70–73.
16.
LeeJ. (2018). Perspectives on automotive automation and autonomy. Journal of Cognitive Engineering & Decision Making, 12, 53–57.
17.
LiY.BurnsC. (2017). Modeling automation with cognitive work analysis to support human-automation coordination. Journal of Cognitive Engineering & Decision Making, 11(4), 299–322.
18.
MillerC. (2018). The risks of discretization: What is lost in (even good) “levels of automation” schemes. Journal of Cognitive Engineering & Decision Making, 12, 74–76.
19.
NaikarN. (2018). Human–automation interaction in self-organizing sociotechnical systems. Journal of Cognitive Engineering & Decision Making, 12, 62–66.
20.
OnnaschL.WickensC. D.LiH.ManzeyD. (2014). Human performance consequences of stages and levels of automation: An integrated meta-analysis. Human Factors, 56, 476–488.
21.
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, 30(3), 286–297.
22.
SheridanT. (2018). Comments on “Issues in human–automation interaction modeling: Presumptive aspects of frameworks of types and levels of automation.”Journal of Cognitive Engineering & Decision Making, 12, 25–28.
23.
SheridanT. B.VerplankW. L. (1978). Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators (Technical report). Cambridge, MA: MIT Man-Machine Laboratory.
24.
SmithP. (2018). Conceptual frameworks to guide design. Journal of Cognitive Engineering & Decision Making, 12, 50–52.
25.
VertutJ.CoiffetP. (1985). Teleoperation and robotics: Applications and technology (Robot Technology, Vol. 3B). The Hague, the Netherlands: Springer.
26.
WickensC. D. (2018). Automation stages and levels: 20 years after. Journal of Cognitive Engineering & Decision Making, 12, 35–41.
27.
WrightM. C.KaberD. B.EndsleyM. R. (2003). Performance and situation awareness effects of levels of automation in an advanced commercial aircraft flight simulation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 1277–1282). Dayton, OH: Wright State University.
