The automation design advisor tool (ADAT): Development and validation of a model‐based tool to support flight deck automation design for nextgen operations
Open accessAbstract
NextGen aviation will require an even greater reliance on automation than current‐day operations. Therefore, systems with problems in human–automation interaction must be identified and resolved early, well before they are introduced into operation. This paper describes a research and software development effort to build a prototype automation design advisor tool (ADAT) for flight deck automation. This tool uses models of human performance to identify perceptual, cognitive, and action‐related inefficiencies in the design of flight management systems. Aviation designers can use the tool to evaluate and compare potential flight deck automation designs and to identify potential human–automation interaction concerns. Designers can compare different flight management systems in terms of specific features and their ability to support pilot performance. ADAT provides specific, research‐based guidance for resolving problematic design issues. It was specifically designed to be flexible enough for both current‐day technologies and revolutionary NextGen designs. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The issues of underload and overload are joined in a single application when the challenge of workload transitions is faced, particularly with highly automated systems such as nuclear or process control, or the modern flight deck.
“We note that the issues of underload and overload are joined in a single application when the challenge of workload transitions is faced, particularly, with highly automated systems such as nuclear or process control, or the modern flight deck (Huey and Wickens 1993; Sebok et al. 2012).”
From State of science: mental workload in ergonomics (2015) · cites this paper as Sebok et al. 2012
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 56 · Cited by 12
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., & Pelz, J. B. (1995). Mem- ory representation in natural tasks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(1), 66-86.
- Funk, K., Lyall, B., Wilson, J., Vint, R., Niemczyk, M., Suroteguh, C., & Owen, G. (1999). Flight deck automa- tion issues. International Journal of Aviation Psychol- ogy, 9(2), 109-123.
- Jacobsen, A., Chen, S., & Widemann, J. (2000). Vertical situation awareness displays. Proceedings Royal Aero- nautical Society Conference on Situation Awareness, London, UK.
- Mumaw, R., Boorman, D. J., & Prada, R. L. (2006). Exper- imental evaluation of a new autoflight interface. Pro- ceedings HCI-Aero 2006, International Conference on Human Computer Interaction, September 20-22, 2006, Seattle, Washington.
- Sherry L., & Polson, P. G. (1999). Shared models of FMS vertical guidance. International Journal of Aviation Psy- chology, 9, 139-154.
- Sherry, L., Fennell, K., Feary, M., & Polson, P. (2006b). Analysis of flight management system messages. AIAA Journal of Aircraft, 43, 1372-1376.
- Wickens, C. D., & McCarley, J. M. (2008). Applied at- tention theory. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press / Taylor & Francis.
- Authors
- Sebok, A., Wickens, C., Sarter, N., Quesada, S., Socash, C., & Anthony, B.
- Affiliations
- Alion Science and Technology (United States) (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sebok, Angelia
- Venue
- Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-03-20
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 378-394
- ISSN
- 1090-8471 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6564
- OpenAlex
- W2077708399
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 2.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries (publishedVersion)
- Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Ames Research Center
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Ergonomics and Human Factors
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- cockpit automation, human-automation interaction, flight management system, human performance modeling, pilot performance, design evaluation, design guidelines
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
