How operators make use of wide-choice adaptable automation: observations from a series of experimental studies
Abstract
The present paper is concerned with the design of adaptable automation. It analyses the aggregated data from five experiments (N = 154) to examine which automation levels operators prefer, how often they switch between them, and whether performance is associated with frequent switching or the automation levels being used. Using wide-choice adaptable automation (i.e. up to six levels were offered), the experiments were conducted using a PC-based simulation of a complex work environment. The results showed that about 95% of operators had a clearly preferred automation level, which they used for more than 50% of the time. They strongly preferred intermediate automation levels over levels at the higher and lower ends of the scale. Most operators switched rarely between levels and when they did, they usually made small adjustment rather than large changes. Several implications for the design of adaptable automation were derived from the empirical data.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
System adaptability can be beneficial to oversight if oversight persons can adapt the system's processes or its interface.
“It can be beneficial to oversight if oversight persons can adapt the system's processes or its interface [25, 69].”
From On the Quest for Effectiveness in Human Oversight: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (2024) · cites this paper as [69]
Cites
Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research
(1988) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9 · Cited by 15,003 · see citing works
A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans · doi:10.1109/3468.844354 · Cited by 4,195 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…models were extended by adding a second dimension describing different information processing stages (i.e. information acquisition, information analysis, decision selection and action implementation), which can be automated to different degrees (Parasuraman, Sheridan, and Wickens 2000).”
BackgroundFoundations for an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Automated Systems
Jian, J.-Y., Bisantz, A. M., & Drury, C. G. (2000) · International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics · doi:10.1207/s15327566ijce0401_04 · Cited by 1,799 · see citing works
ENDSLEY, M. R., & KABER, D. B. (1999) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/001401399185595 · Cited by 1,088 · see citing works
Vagia, M., Transeth, A. A., & Fjerdingen, S. A. (2016) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.09.013 · Cited by 299 · see citing works
Manzey, D., Reichenbach, J., & Onnasch, L. (2012) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/1555343411433844 · Cited by 277 · see citing works
de Vries, P., Midden, C., & Bouwhuis, D. (2003) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00039-9 · Cited by 264 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
When computers take the lead: The automation of leadership
Wesche, J. S., & Sonderegger, A. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.027 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
On the Quest for Effectiveness in Human Oversight: Interdisciplinary Perspectives
Sterz, S., Baum, K., Biewer, S., Hermanns, H., Lauber-Rönsberg, A., Meinel, P., & Langer, M. (2024) · The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3630106.3659051 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
“It can be beneficial to oversight if over-sight persons can adapt the system’s processes or its interface [25, 69].”
Background
- Authors
- Sauer, J., & Chavaillaz, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Fribourg (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Sauer, Juergen
- Venue
- Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-03-09
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 135-155
- ISSN
- 1463-922X (ISSN-L)
- 1464-536X
- OpenAlex
- W2591908566
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 2.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Keywords
- human-automation interaction, operator 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
