CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 165Human-Automation Interaction and SafetySocial Robot Interaction and HRIRisk and Safety Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 87 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Automation transparency: implications of uncertainty communication for human-automation interaction and interfaces

Open access
Kunze, Alexander, Summerskill, Stephen J., Marshall, Russell, Filtness, Ashleigh J.·2019·Ergonomics
DOI 10.1080/00140139.2018.1547842
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Operators of highly automated driving systems may exhibit behaviour characteristic for overtrust issues due to an insufficient awareness of automation fallibility. Consequently, situation awareness in critical situations is reduced and safe driving performance following emergency takeovers is impeded. A driving simulator study was used to assess the impact of dynamically communicating system uncertainties on monitoring, trust, workload, takeovers, and physiological responses. The uncertainty information was conveyed visually using a stylised heart beat combined with a numerical display and users were engaged in a visual search task. Multilevel analysis results suggest that uncertainty communication helps operators calibrate their trust and gain situation awareness prior to critical situations, resulting in safer takeovers. In addition, eye tracking data indicate that operators can adjust their gaze behaviour in correspondence with the level of uncertainty. However, conveying uncertainties using a visual display significantly increases operator workload and impedes users in the execution of non-driving related tasks. Practitioner Summary: This article illustrates how the communication of system uncertainty information helps operators calibrate their trust in automation and, consequently, gain situation awareness. Multilevel analysis results of a driving simulator study affirm the benefits for trust calibration and highlight that operators adjust their behaviour according to multiple uncertainty levels.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00140139.2018.1547842

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Most commonly, trust calibration was measured as statistical differences of trustworthiness perceptions between high-reliability and low-reliability groups, examined through analysis of variance.

    “Most commonly, the trust calibration was measured as the statistical diferences of trustworthiness perceptions of systems with high reliability and trustworthiness perceptions of systems with low-reliability groups, examined through analysis of variance (see, e.g., [4, 15, 26, 47, 58, 61, 68-70, 82, 84, 89, 90, 107, 117, 130, 140, 145]).”

    From Measuring and Understanding Trust Calibrations for Automated Systems: A Survey of the State-Of-The-Art and Future Directions (2023) · cites this paper as [70]

  • Uncertainty cues increased workload in some cases but not others and led to instances of over-trust when cues were not reliable.

    “Yet, uncertainty cues also increased workload in some cases [70] but not in others [92] and led to instances of over-trust when the cues were not reliable [140].”

    From Measuring and Understanding Trust Calibrations for Automated Systems: A Survey of the State-Of-The-Art and Future Directions (2023) · cites this paper as [70]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 87 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. 10.1007/978-1-84628-618-6_141 · DOI
  2. 10.1007/978-3-642-13505-71 · DOI
  3. Endsley M. R., 2012, Designing for
  4. Gal, Y. 2016. “Uncertainty in Deep Learning.” PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge.
  5. 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-91 · DOI
  6. 10.1518/hfes.46.1.50.30392 · DOI · Paper page
  7. May P., 1993, Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA
  8. 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Nguyen T., 2018, Eprint ArXiv, 1803, 1
  10. Snijders T. A. B., 2012, Multilevel Analysis
  11. Steptoe A., 1991, Circulation, 83, 14
  12. 10.13140/RG.2.2.33648.56326 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Kunze, A., Summerskill, S. J., Marshall, R., & Filtness, A. J.
Affiliations
Loughborough University (GB)
Corresponding author
Kunze, Alexander
ORCID
Venue
Ergonomics
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2019-02-05
Volume
62
Issue
3
Pages
345-360
ISSN
  • 0014-0139 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-5847
DOI
10.1080/00140139.2018.1547842
OpenAlex
W2902480251
Cited by
165
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 6
FWCI
13.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Ergonomics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Risk and Safety Analysis
Keywords
uncertainty communication, human-automation interaction, trust in automation, overtrust, situational awareness, operator workload, gaze behavior, physiological responses, non-driving related tasks
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Automobile Driving, Communication, Computer Simulation, Eye Movements, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Man-Machine Systems, Middle Aged, Reaction Time, Task Performance and Analysis, User-Computer Interface, Workload, Uncertainty, Trust, Multilevel Analysis

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