The effects of adaptive task allocation on monitoring for automation failure during multi task flight simulation were examined. Participants monitored an automated engine status task while simultaneously performing tracking and fuel management tasks over three 3D-min sessions. Two methods of adaptive task allocation, both involving temporary return of the automated engine status task to the human operator (“human control”), were examined as a possible countermeasure to monitoring inefficiency. For the model-based adaptive group, the engine status task was allocated to all participants in the middle of the second session for 10 min, following which it was again returned to automation control. The same occurred for the performance-based adaptive group, but only if an individual participant's monitoring performance up to that point did not meet a specified criterion. For the nonadaptive control groups, the engine status task remained automated throughout the experiment. All groups had low probabilities of detection of automation failures for the first 40 min spent with automation. However, following the lO-min intervening period of human control, both adaptive groups detected significantly more automation failures during the subsequent blocks under automation control. The results show that adaptive task allocation can enhance monitoring of automated systems. Both model-based and performance-based allocation improved monitoring of automation. Implications for the design of automated systems are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bainbridge, L. (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica.19, 775–779.
2.
Billings, C. E., & Woods, D. D. (1994). Concerns about adaptive automation in aviation systems. In M. Mouloua & R. Parasuraman, (Eds.), Human performance in automated systems: Current research and trends (pp. 264–269). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
Chambers, N., & Nagel, D. C. (1985). Pilots of the future: Human or computer?. Communications of the ACM,28, 1187–1199.
4.
Comstock, J. R., & Arnegard, R. J. (1992). Multi-attribute task battery (NASA Tech. Memorandum 104174). Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center.
5.
Craig, A. (1984). Human engineering: The control of vigilance. In J. S. Warm (Ed.), Sustained attention in human performance (pp. 247–291. Chichester, England: Wiley.
6.
Davies, D. R., & Parasuraman, R. (1982). The psychology of vigilance. London: Academic.
7.
Endsley, M., & Kiris, E. (1994). The out-of-loop performance problem: Impact of level of automation and situation awareness. In M. Mouloua & R. Parasuraman, (Eds.), Human performance in automated systems: Current research and trends (pp. 50–56. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
Fitts, P. M. (1951). Engineering psychology in equipment design. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology (pp. 365–379). New York: Wiley.
9.
Hancock, P. A., & Chignell, M. H. (Eds.). (1989). Intelligent interfaces: Theory, research and design. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
10.
Hilburn, B., Jorna, P. G. A. M., & Parasuraman, R. (1995). The effect of advanced ATC automation on mental workload and monitoring performance: An empirical investigation in Dutch airspace. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 387–391). Columbus: Ohio State Universitv.
11.
Hilburn, B., Parasuraman, R.: & Mouloua, M. (1995). Effects of short-and long-cycle adaptive function allocation on performance of flight-related tasks. In N. Johnston, R. Fuller, & N. McDonald, (Eds.), Aviation psychology: Training and selection (pp. 347–353. Hampshire, England: Ashgate.
12.
Johannsen, G., pfendler, C., & Stein, W. (1976). Human performance and workload in simulated landing approaches with autopilot failures. In T. B. Sheridan & G. Johannsen, (Eds.), Monitoring behavior and supervisory control (pp. 83–93. New York: Plenum.
13.
Kantowitz, B., & Sorkin, R. (1987). Allocation of function. In G. Salvendy (Ed.). Handbook of human factors (pp. 447–458). New York: Wiley.
14.
Kessel, C. J., & Wickens, C. D. (1982). The transfer of failure detection skills between monitoring and controlling dynamics. Human Factors,24, 49–60.
15.
Lee, J. D., & Moray, N. (1992). Trust, control strategies, and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics,35, 1243–1270.
16.
Lewandowsky, S., & Nikolic, D. (1995). A connectionist approach to modeling the effects of automation. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 898–902). Columbus: Ohio State University.
17.
Liu, Y. R., Fuld, R., & Wickens, C. D. (1993). Monitoring behavior in manual and automated scheduling systems. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies.39, 1015–1029.
18.
Molloy, R., & Parasuraman, R. (1996). Monitoring an automated system for a single failure: Vigilance and task complexity effects. Human Factors, 38, 311–322.
19.
Morris, N. M., & Rouse, W. B. (1986). Adaptive aiding for human-computer control: Experimental studies of dynamic task allocation (Report AAMRL-TR-86-005). Dayton, OH: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.
20.
Mosier, K. L., Skitka, L. J., & Korte, K. J. (1994). Cognitive and social psychological issues in flight crew/automation interaction. In M. Mouloua & R. Parasuraman, (Eds.), Human performance in automated systems: Current research and trends (pp. 191–197. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
Muir, B. M. (1988). Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids. In E. Hollnagel, G. Mancini, & D. D. Woods, (Eds.), Cognitive engineering in complex dynamic worlds (pp. 71–83). London: Academic.
22.
Norman, S., Billings, C. E., Nagel, D., Palmer, E., Wiener, E. L., & Woods, D. D. (1988). Aircraft automation philosophy: A source document. Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center.
23.
Palmer, E., & Degani, A. (1991). Electronic checklists: Evaluation of two levels of automation. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. 6th Annual Conference (pp. 178–183). Columbus: Ohio State University.
24.
Parasuraman, R. (1986). Vigilance, monitoring, and search. In K. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. Thomas, (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance: Vol. 2. Cognitive processes and performance (pp. 43.1–43.39). New York: Wiley.
25.
Parasuraman, R. (1987). Human-computer monitoring. Human Factors,29, 695–706.
26.
Parasuraman, R. (1993). Effects of adaptive function allocation on human performance. In D. J. Garland & J. A. Wise, (Eds.). Human factors and advanced aviation technologies (pp. 147–157). Daytona Beach, FL: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Press.
27.
Parasuraman, R., Bahri, T., Deaton, J., Morrison, J., & Barnes, M. (1992). Theory and design of adaptive automation in aviation systems (Progress Report NAWCADWAR-92033-60). Warminster, PA: Naval Air Warfare Center. Aircraft Division.
28.
Parasuraman, R., Bahri, T., & Molloy, R. (1991). Adaptive automation and human performance: I. Multi-task performance characteristics (Tech. Report CSL-N91-1). Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, Cognitive Science Laboratory.
29.
Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., & Singh, I. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced "complacency.". International Journal of Aviation Psychology,3, 1–23.
30.
Parasuraman, R., Mouloua, M., & Molloy, R. (1994). Monitoring automation failures in human-machine systems. In M. Mouloua & R. Parasuraman, (Eds.), Human performance in automated systems: Current research and trends (pp. 45–49. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
Parasuraman, R., Mouloua, M., Molloy, R., & Hilburn, B. (1996). Monitoring of automated systems. In R. Parasuraman & M. Mouloua, (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 91–115. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
Riley, V. (1994). Operator reliance on automation: Theory and data. In M. Mouloua & R. Parasuraman, (Eds.), Human performance in automated systems: Current research and trends (pp. 8–14. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
33.
Rouse, W. B. (1988). Adaptive aiding for human/computer control. Human Factors,30, 431–438.
34.
Rouse, W. B. (1994). Twenty years of adaptive aiding: Origins of the concept and lessons learned. In M. Mouloua & R. Parasuraman, (Eds.), Human performance in automated systems: Current research and trends (pp. 28–32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35.
Satchell, P. (1993). Cockpit monitoring and alerting systems. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
36.
Scerbo, M. (1996). Theoretical perspectives on adaptive automation. In R. Parasuraman & M. Mouloua, (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 37–63. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
37.
Sheridan, T. (1970). On how often the supervisor should sample. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics, SSC-6, 140–145.
38.
Singh, I. L., Molloy, R., & Parasuraman, R. (1993). Automation-induced "complacency": Development of the complacency-potential rating scale. International Journal of Aviation Psychology,3, 111–121.
39.
Thackray, R. I., & Touchstone, R. M. (1989). Detection efficiency on an air traffic control monitoring task with and without computer aiding. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine,60, 744–748.
40.
Wickens, C. D. (1992). Engineering psychology and human performance. (2nd ed.) New York: HarperCollins.
41.
Wickens, C. D. (1994). Designing for situational awareness and trust in automation. In Proceedings of the IFAC Conference on Integrated Engineering (pp. 174–179). Baden-Baden, Germany: International Federation on Automatic Control.
42.
Wickens, C. D., & Kessel, C. (1979). The effects of participatory mode and task workload on the detection of dynamic system failures. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. SMC-9, 24–34.
43.
Wickens, C. D., & Kessel, C. (1981). Failure detection in dynamic systems. In J. Rasmussen & W. Rouse, (Eds.), Human detection and diagnosis of system failures (pp. 282–293. New York: Plenum.
44.
Wiener, E. L. (1988). Cockpit automation. In E. L. Wiener & D. C. Nagel, (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (pp. 433–461. San Diego, CA: Academic.
45.
Young, L. R. (1969). On adaptive manual control. IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems,MMS-10, 292–331.
