The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predicting the effects of automation reliability rates on human-automation team performance
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“human teams outperformed HATs at lower levels of autonomous agent reliability (Hillesheim & Rusnock, 2016).”
From Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature (2022) · cites this paper as Hillesheim & Rusnock, 2016
In the citing paper
“lower performance (Hillesheim & Rusnock, 2016)”
From Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature (2022) · cites this paper as Hillesheim & Rusnock, 2016
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
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605
Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration
Parasuraman, R., & Manzey, D. H. (2010) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720810376055 · Cited by 1,710 · cited 4×
“…positive performance when the automation had a reliability greater than 80%, neutral performance from 70% to 80% and negative performance when the automation’s reliability was less than 70% (Dixon and Wickens 2006; Wickens and Dixon 2007; Maltz and Shinar 2003; Parasuraman and Manzey 2010).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: a synthesis of the literature
Wickens, C. D., & Dixon, S. R. (2007) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/14639220500370105 · Cited by 423 · cited 5×
“While studies have examined the use of automation reliability as an aid to the user (Dixon and Wickens 2006; Wickens and Dixon 2007; Parasuraman and Manzey 2010) there is a lack of depth in the literature that addresses when an automated agent, who acts like a teammate rather than an aid, suffers…”
BackgroundInfluential
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- 10.1518/001872007779598082 · DOI · Paper page
- scerbo, 1996, Theoretical Perspectives on Adaptive Automation, Automation and Human performance theory and applications, 37
- singh, 2009, Effects of Automation Reliability and Training on Automation-Induced Complacency and Perceived Mental Workload, Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35, 9
- 10.1518/001872007X215656 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1518/001872006778606822 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1518/hfes.46.1.50.30392 · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50.30392 · Paper page
- 10.1177/0018720814547570 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.21236/ADA508882 · DOI
- bindewald, 2016, Clustering-Based Online Player Modeling, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) - Computer Games Workshop
- 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.07.004 · DOI
- 10.1145/975817.975844 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature
O’Neill, T., McNeese, N., Barron, A., & Schelble, B. (2022) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720820960865 · Cited by 695
Metadata
- Authors
- Hillesheim, A. J., & Rusnock, C. F.
- Venue
- 2016 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2016-12
- Pages
- 1802-1813
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 3
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predicting the effects of automation reliability rates on human-automation team performance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/wsc.2016.7822227
- The paper
- Hillesheim, A. J., & Rusnock, C. F. (2016). Predicting the effects of automation reliability rates on human-automation team performance. 2016 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC). https://doi.org/10.1109/wsc.2016.7822227
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.
