The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Out‐of‐the‐loop performance problems and the use of intermediate levels of automation for improved control system functioning and safety
Abstract
Human supervisory control and monitoring of automated systems, as well as, passive system(s) information processing can all be classified as forms of out‐of‐the‐loop (OOTL) performance. Whether the operator's task is to decide if process control intervention is necessary, detect a critical system event, or accept or reject the actions of a computer controller, he or she is removed from direct, real‐time control of the system. OOTL performance is a critical issue in overall automated systems functioning because it is associated with numerous negative consequences including: (a) operator failure to observe system parameter changes and intervene when necessary (vigilance decrements); (b) human over‐trust in computer controllers (complacency); (c) operator loss of system or situation awareness; and (d) operator direct/manual control skill decay. These consequences have been found to impact human performance under both normal operating conditions and system failure modes, with a greater effect on the latter [15] leading to serious problems in operator ability to perform their assigned tasks when working with automated systems. Level of automation (LOA) has been put forth as an approach to ameliorating OOTL performance problems. It is intended to determine the optimal assignment of control between a human operator and computer in order to keep both involved in system operations. LOA considers the capabilities and capacities of both the human and computer controller in determining their optimal coupling. It constitutes a systems approach to resolving OOTL performance problems by minimizing the negative consequences associated with the removal of the operator from active system control, and allows for the strengths of both human decision making and computer processing to be realized. When compared to a technological approach that assesses only the capabilities of the computer in allocating as much responsibility to the machine as possible, and assigning the remaining tasks to the human operator, the advantages can be considerable. A LOA taxonomy will be presented along with research examining its utility in a dynamic control task. Using LOA to identify optimal combinations of human and computer control was found to produce improvements in system performance under intermediate levels. These levels involve joint human and computer control of various system functions, such as monitoring, planning, and option selection and implementation. Results indicated decreases in the number of system processes/tasks overlooked by operators. These improvements may translate into cost reductions due to improved operational safety and are anticipated to be applicable to process control operations.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
ENDSLEY, M. R., & KABER, D. B. (1999) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/001401399185595 · Cited by 1,088
Self-citationPerformance Consequences of Automation-Induced 'Complacency'
Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., & Singh, I. L. (1993) · The International Journal of Aviation Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0301_1 · Cited by 875
Cited by
Situation Awareness Misconceptions and Misunderstandings
Endsley, M. R. (2015) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/1555343415572631 · Cited by 501
Self-citationHuman Interaction With Robot Swarms: A Survey
Kolling, A., Walker, P., Chakraborty, N., Sycara, K., & Lewis, M. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · doi:10.1109/thms.2015.2480801 · Cited by 424
Bahner, J. E., Hüper, A.-D., & Manzey, D. (2008) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.06.001 · Cited by 279
An Occupational Safety and Health Perspective on Human in Control and AI
Niehaus, S., Hartwig, M., Rosen, P. H., & Wischniewski, S. (2022) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2022.868382 · Cited by 47
Analysis of reactions towards failures and recovery strategies for autonomous robots
Brooks, D. J., Begum, M., & Yanco, H. A. (2016) · 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) · doi:10.1109/roman.2016.7745162 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaber, D. B., & Endsley, M. R.
- Venue
- Process Safety Progress
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-09
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 126-131
- ISSN
- 1066-8527 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-5913
- OpenAlex
- W2155462116
- Cited by
- 254
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Out‐of‐the‐loop performance problems and the use of intermediate levels of automation for improved control system functioning and safety. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/prs.680160304
- The paper
- Kaber, D. B., & Endsley, M. R. (1997). Out‐of‐the‐loop performance problems and the use of intermediate levels of automation for improved control system functioning and safety. Process Safety Progress. https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.680160304
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.