Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 789

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task

Kaber, David B., Endsley, Mica R.·2004·Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science
DOI 10.1080/1463922021000054335
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper extends previous research on two approaches to human-centred automation: (1) intermediate levels of automation (LOAs) for maintaining operator involvement in complex systems control and facilitating situation awareness; and (2) adaptive automation (AA) for managing operator workload through dynamic control allocations between the human and machine over time. Some empirical research has been conducted to examine LOA and AA independently, with the objective of detailing a theory of human-centred automation. Unfortunately, no previous work has studied the interaction of these two approaches, nor has any research attempted to systematically determine which LOAs should be used in adaptive systems and how certain types of dynamic function allocations should be scheduled over time. The present research briefly reviews the theory of human-centred automation and LOA and AA approaches. Building on this background, an initial study was presented that attempts to address the conjuncture of these two approaches to human-centred automation. An experiment was conducted in which a dual-task scenario was used to assess the performance, SA and workload effects of low, intermediate and high LOAs, which were dynamically allocated (as part of an AA strategy) during manual system control for various cycle times comprising 20, 40 and 60% of task time. The LOA and automation allocation cycle time (AACT) combinations were compared to completely manual control and fully automated control of a dynamic control task performed in conjunction with an embedded secondary monitoring task. Results revealed LOA to be the driving factor in determining primary task performance and SA. Low-level automation produced superior performance and intermediate LOAs facilitated higher SA, but this was not associated with improved performance or reduced workload. The AACT was the driving factor in perceptions of primary task workload and secondary task performance. When a greater percentage of primary task time was automated, operator perceptual resources were freed-up and monitoring performance on the secondary task improved. Longer automation cycle times than have previously been studied may have benefits for overall human–machine system performance. The combined effect of LOA and AA on all measures did not appear to be ‘additive’ in nature. That is, the LOA producing the best performance (low level automation) did not do so at the AACT, which produced superior performance (maximum cycle time). In general, the results are supportive of intermediate LOAs and AA as approaches to human-centred automation, but each appears to provide different benefits to human–machine system performance. This work provides additional information for a developing theory of human-centred automation.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1463922021000054335

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 9 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Kaber, D. B., & Endsley, M. R.
Venue
Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2004-03
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
113-153
ISSN
  • 1463-922X (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-536X
DOI
10.1080/1463922021000054335
OpenAlex
W2155830908
Cited by
789
References
9
FWCI
19.39
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

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.