Cited by 423Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyRisk and Safety AnalysisClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: a synthesis of the literature

Wickens, Christopher D., Dixon, Stephen R.·2007·Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science

Abstract

This review of the literature examines, in a quantitative fashion, how the level of imperfection or unreliability of diagnostic automation affects the performance of the human operator who is jointly consulting that automation and the raw data itself. The data from 20 different studies were used to generate 35 different data points that compared performance with varying levels of unreliability, with that of a non-automated baseline condition. A regression analysis of benefits/costs relative to baseline was carried out, and revealed a strong linear function of benefits with reliability. The analysis revealed that a reliability of 0.70 was the ‘crossover point’ below which unreliable automation was worse than no automation at all. The analysis also revealed that performance was more strongly affected by reliability in high workload conditions, implicating the role of workload-imposed automation dependence in producing this relationship, and suggesting that humans tend to protect performance of concurrent tasks from imperfection of diagnostic automation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14639220500370105

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wickens, C. D., & Dixon, S. R.
Corresponding author
Wickens, Christopher D.
Venue
Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science
Published
2007-05
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
201-212
ISSN
  • 1463-922X (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-536X
OpenAlex
W2019160338
Cited by
423
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 18
FWCI
15.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Risk and Safety Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
automated diagnosis, automation reliability, operator performance, human-automation interaction, workload, crossover point, dual-task performance

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