The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What Determines Appropriate Trust of and Reliance on an Automated Collaborative System? Effects of Error Type and Domain Knowledge
Abstract
In this investigation we evaluated the effect of two types of factors that affect human-automation interaction: those specific to the automation (Error Type: miss versus false alarm) and those specific to the human (domain experience, in this study automated farm equipment experience versus no experience). Participants performed a simulated harvesting task and used an obstacle avoidance automated decision aid. The type of unreliability of the automation had a major impact on behavioral reliance as a function of components of the avoidance decision task. The analysis of the effects of domain experience on automation use indicated that those with experience operating agricultural vehicles had different tendencies of reliance. Specifically, participants with experience operating agricultural vehicles were less likely to rely on automated alarms than those without experience. The results of this investigation have important implications for understanding how humans adjust their behavior according to the characteristics of an automated system
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
Robinette et al. and Schelble et al. found no effects of apologies on trust repair.
“In contrast to that, Robinette et al. [112] and Schelble et al. [116] found no efects of apologies on trust repair.”
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 [112]
Individuals' level of experience affected trustworthiness perceptions, and one study found experts were generally less willing to rely on automation than lay users.
“In addition, individuals' level of experience afected the trustworthiness perceptions [103], and one study even found that experts were generally less willing to rely on automation than lay users [113].”
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 [113]
Citations
Cites
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III
Ryan, J. J., & Lopez, S. J. (2001) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-1185-4_2 · Cited by 3,680
Performance 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 1×
“For example, failure detection by humans tends to suffer as a result of automation induced complacency [6].”
BackgroundShipley Institute of Living Scale
Shipley, W. C. (1940) · PsycTESTS Dataset · doi:10.1037/t07774-000 · Cited by 181
Automated diagnostic aids: The effects of aid reliability on users' trust and reliance
Wiegmann, D. A., Rich, A., & Zhang, H. (2001) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/14639220110110306 · Cited by 176
(2018) · doi:10.1201/9781315137957-2 · Cited by 108
Reliability and Age-Related Effects on Trust and Reliance of a Decision Support Aid
Sánchez, J., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (2004) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193120404800366 · Cited by 63
Self-citationDriver Reliability Requirements for Traffic Advisory Information
Kantowitz, B. H., Hanowski, R. J., & Kantowitz, S. C. (2020) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781003064107-1 · Cited by 15
Flagged first, then by citations
2 of the 9 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- kirlik, 2006, Adaptive Perspectives on Human-Technology Interaction
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wischnewski, M., Krämer, N., & Müller, E. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581197 · Cited by 146
“that experts were generally less willing to rely on automation than lay users [113].”
BackgroundImproving low visibility operations
Haltli, B., Johnson, C., Johnson, C., McCourt, S., Sanchez, J., & Stapleton, S. (2008) · Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS) · doi:10.1109/icnsurv.2008.4559164
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Sanchez, J., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A.
- Affiliations
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- ORCID
- Rogers, Wendy A.
- Venue
- 2006 9th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2006
- Pages
- 1-6
- OpenAlex
- W2159292375
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 0.48
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision (ICARCV) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute on Aging
- 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
- human-automation interaction, trust in automation, reliance on automation, error types, domain knowledge, agricultural vehicles, automated decision aids, obstacle avoidance, automation reliability
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
