Human Versus Automation in Responding to Failures: An Expected-Value Analysis

Abstract

A simple analytical criterion is provided for deciding whether a human or automation is best for a failure detection task. The method is based on expected-value decision theory in much the same way as is signal detection. It requires specification of the probabilities of misses (false negatives) and false alarms (false positives) for both human and automation being considered, as well as factors independent of the choice - namely, costs and benefits of incorrect and correct decisions as well as the prior probability of failure. The method can also serve as a basis for comparing different modes of automation. Some limiting cases of application are discussed, as are some decision criteria other than expected value. Actual or potential applications include the design and evaluation of any system in which either humans or automation are being considered.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Billings, C. S. (1996). Aviation automation: The search for a human-centered approach Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Green, D. M. , & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics New York: Wiley.

Hancock, P. A. , & Scallen, S. F. (1996). The future of function allocation. Ergonomics in Design, 4(4), 24–29.

Inagaki, T. (1999). Situation-adaptive autonomy: Trading control of authority in human-machine systems. In M. W. Scerbo & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation technology and human performance: Current research and trends (pp. 154–159. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Moray, N. , Inagaki, T. , & Itoh, M. (in press). Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied.

Parasuraman, R. , Hancock, P. A. , & Olofinboba, O. (1997). Alarm effectiveness in driver-centered collision-warning systems. Ergonomics, 39, 390–399.

Parasuraman, R. , Mouloua, M. , & Molloy, R. (1996). Effects of adaptive task allocation on monitoring of automated systems. Human Factors, 38, 665–679.

Parasuraman, R. , & Riley, V. A. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.

Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

10.

Sheridan, T. B. (1998a). Allocating functions rationally between humans and machines. Ergonomics in Design, 6(3), 20–25.

11.

Sheridan, T. B. (1998b). Rumination on automation. In Proceedings of the 1998 IFAC -MMS Conference (pp. 19–27). Oxford, England: International Federation of Automatic Control.