The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Human Performance Consequences of Automated Decision Aids: The Impact of Degree of Automation and System Experience
Abstract
Two experiments are reported that investigate to what extent performance consequences of automated aids are dependent on the distribution of functions between human and automation and on the experience an operator has with an aid. In the first experiment, performance consequences of three automated aids for the support of a supervisory control task were compared. Aids differed in degree of automation (DOA). Compared with a manual control condition, primary and secondary task performance improved and subjective workload decreased with automation support, with effects dependent on DOA. Performance costs include return-to-manual performance issues that emerged for the most highly automated aid and effects of complacency and automation bias, respectively, which emerged independent of DOA. The second experiment specifically addresses how automation bias develops over time and how this development is affected by prior experience with the system. Results show that automation failures entail stronger effects than positive experience (reliably working aid). Furthermore, results suggest that commission errors in interaction with automated aids can depend on three sorts of automation bias effects: (a) withdrawal of attention in terms of incomplete cross-checking of information, (b) active discounting of contradictory system information, and (c) inattentive processing of contradictory information analog to a “looking-but-not-seeing” effect.
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?
In the citing paper
“The positive loop is triggered by the experience of automation success, and the negative loop by the experience of automation failures.”
From Toward Quantifying Trust Dynamics: How People Adjust Their Trust After Moment-to-Moment Interaction With Automation (2023) · cites this paper as Manzey et al., 2012
In the citing paper
“Second, automation failures engender a much stronger influence on trust adjustment than automation successes: trust is difficult to build but can be lost quickly”
From Toward Quantifying Trust Dynamics: How People Adjust Their Trust After Moment-to-Moment Interaction With Automation (2023) · cites this paper as Manzey et al., 2012
In the citing paper
“human operators adjust their trust in automation based on positive and negative feedback loops”
From Toward Quantifying Trust Dynamics: How People Adjust Their Trust After Moment-to-Moment Interaction With Automation (2023) · cites this paper as Manzey et al., 2012
In the citing paper
“This is in line with previous research, where users in a simulated process control task reduced the verification of additional parameters over time, but further controlled for necessary parameters (Manzey et al., 2012).”
From Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection (2023) · cites this paper as Manzey et al., 2012
Citations
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
Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872097778543886 · Cited by 4,554
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 5×
“To guide the research on automation-induced performance consequences, different framework models have been proposed that allow for a standardized characterization of automated systems with respect to how functions are distributed between humans and machine (e.g., Endsley & Kaber, 1999; Endsley & Kiris, 1995; Parasuram…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialComplacency 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 2×
“…bias—that is, an inappropriate weighting of different information—but the effect of a bias of information processing characterized by an automation-induced withdrawal or reallocation of attention, which resembles the complacency effect in automation monitoring (cf. Parasuraman & Manzey, 2010).”
BackgroundSelf-citationMack, A., & Rock, I. (1998) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/3707.001.0001 · Cited by 1,636
Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems
LEE, J., & MORAY, N. (1992) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139208967392 · Cited by 1,459
The Out-of-the-Loop Performance Problem and Level of Control in Automation
Endsley, M. R., & Kiris, E. O. (1995) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872095779064555 · Cited by 1,406
The role of trust in automation reliance
Dzindolet, M. T., Peterson, S. A., Pomranky, R. A., Pierce, L. G., & Beck, H. P. (2003) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00038-7 · Cited by 1,276
ENDSLEY, M. R., & KABER, D. B. (1999) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/001401399185595 · Cited by 1,088
Hancock, P. A., & Meshkati, N. (1988) · Cited by 954
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Bahner J. E., 2008, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 66, 688
- Duley J. A., 1997, Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 322
- Luedtke A., 2005, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of Human-Computer Interaction
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research
Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0057 · Cited by 2,921
Trust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust
Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720814547570 · Cited by 2,817
From Here to Autonomy: Lessons Learned From Human–Automation Research
Endsley, M. R. (2017) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720816681350 · Cited by 898
Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents.
de Visser, E. J., Monfort, S. S., McKendrick, R., Smith, M. A. B., McKnight, P. E., Krueger, F., & Parasuraman, R. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/xap0000092 · Cited by 614
What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion
Mahmud, H., Islam, A. K. M. N., Ahmed, S. I., & Smolander, K. (2022) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121390 · Cited by 601
Human–Agent Teaming for Multirobot Control: A Review of Human Factors Issues
Chen, J. Y. C., & Barnes, M. J. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · doi:10.1109/thms.2013.2293535 · Cited by 554
Human Performance Consequences of Stages and Levels of Automation: An Integrated Meta-Analysis
Onnasch, L., Wickens, C. D., Li, H., & Manzey, D. (2014) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720813501549 · Cited by 524
Self-citationAutomation bias and verification complexity: a systematic review
Lyell, D., & Coiera, E. (2017) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocw105 · Cited by 451
Autonomous Driving Systems: A Preliminary Naturalistic Study of the Tesla Model S
Endsley, M. R. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/1555343417695197 · Cited by 286
The Role of Uncertainty, Awareness, and Trust in Visual Analytics
Sacha, D., Senaratne, H., Kwon, B. C., Ellis, G. P., & Keim, D. A. (2015) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2015.2467591 · Cited by 269
How transparency modulates trust in artificial intelligence
Zerilli, J., Bhatt, U., & Weller, A. (2022) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2022.100455 · Cited by 257
The Development of a Scale to Evaluate Trust in Industrial Human-robot Collaboration
Charalambous, G., Fletcher, S., & Webb, P. (2015) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-015-0333-8 · Cited by 230
Cobots in Industry 4.0: A Roadmap for Future Practice Studies on Human–Robot Collaboration
Weiss, A., Wortmeier, A.-K., & Kubicek, B. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · doi:10.1109/thms.2021.3092684 · Cited by 265
Hergeth, S., Lorenz, L., & Krems, J. F. (2016) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720816678714 · Cited by 231
Evaluating Effects of User Experience and System Transparency on Trust in Automation
Yang, X. J., Unhelkar, V. V., Li, K., & Shah, J. A. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/2909824.3020230 · Cited by 208
Rapid Trust Calibration through Interpretable and Uncertainty-Aware AI
Tomsett, R., Preece, A., Braines, D., Cerutti, F., Chakraborty, S., Srivastava, M., Pearson, G., & Kaplan, L. (2020) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2020.100049 · Cited by 186
Complacency and Automation Bias in the Use of Imperfect Automation
Wickens, C. D., Clegg, B. A., Vieane, A. Z., & Sebok, A. L. (2015) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720815581940 · Cited by 176
Du, N., Haspiel, J., Zhang, Q., Tilbury, D. M., Pradhan, A. K., Yang, X. J., & Robert, L. (2019) · Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.trc.2019.05.025 · Cited by 174
Kunze, A., Summerskill, S. J., Marshall, R., & Filtness, A. J. (2019) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2018.1547842 · Cited by 165
van de Merwe, K., Mallam, S., & Nazir, S. (2022) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208221077804 · Cited by 172
A Task-Based Taxonomy of Cognitive Biases for Information Visualization
Dimara, E., Franconeri, S., Catherine Plaisant, B., Bezerianos, A., & Dragicevic, P. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2018.2872577 · Cited by 192
KABER, D. B. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/1555343417737203 · Cited by 154
Modeling and predicting trust dynamics in human–robot teaming: A Bayesian inference approach
Guo, Y., & Yang, X. J. (2021) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-020-00703-3 · Cited by 133
Chugunova, M., & Sele, D. (2022) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics · doi:10.1016/j.socec.2022.101897 · Cited by 118
Yang, X. J., Schemanske, C., & Searle, C. (2023) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208211034716 · Cited by 132
“Our finding that the magnitude of trust decrements is larger than that of trust increments (supporting H1b) is in line with previous studies in which the number of automation successes significantly exceeded that of automation failures (Lee & Moray, 1992; Manzey et al., 2012).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSystem reliability, performance and trust in adaptable automation.
Chavaillaz, A., Wastell, D., & Sauer, J. S. (2016) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.07.012 · Cited by 102
Automation bias in electronic prescribing
Lyell, D., Magrabi, F., Raban, M. Z., Pont, L. G., Baysari, M. T., Day, R. O., & Coiera, E. (2017) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-017-0425-5 · Cited by 103
“inattentional blindness where participants have made AB errors despite accessing sufficient information to assess that automation was incorrect [12, 13].”
BackgroundImpact of Anthropomorphic Robot Design on Trust and Attention in Industrial Human-Robot Interaction
Onnasch, L., & Hildebrandt, C. L. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3472224 · Cited by 114
Self-citationA Conceptual Model of Trust, Perceived Risk, and Reliance on AI Decision Aids
Solberg, E., Kaarstad, M., Eitrheim, M. H. R., Bisio, R., Reegård, K., & Bloch, M. (2022) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/10596011221081238 · Cited by 102
Schelble, B. G., Lopez, J., Textor, C., Zhang, R., McNeese, N. J., Pak, R., & Freeman, G. (2022) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208221116952 · Cited by 109
Macnamara, B. N., Berber, I., Çavuşoğlu, M. C., Krupinski, E. A., Nallapareddy, N., Nelson, N. E., Smith, P. J., Wilson-Delfosse, A. L., & Ray, S. (2024) · Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-024-00572-8 · Cited by 97
Lyell, D., Coiera, E., Chen, J., Shah, P., & Magrabi, F. (2021) · BMJ Health & Care Informatics · doi:10.1136/bmjhci-2020-100301 · Cited by 95
Körner, U., Müller‐Thur, K., Lunau, T., Dragano, N., Angerer, P., & Buchner, A. (2019) · Stress and Health · doi:10.1002/smi.2853 · Cited by 108
Ironies of Generative AI: Understanding and Mitigating Productivity Loss in Human-AI Interaction
Simkute, A., Tankelevitch, L., Kewenig, V., Scott, A. E., Sellen, A., & Rintel, S. (2024) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2405782 · Cited by 89
“Passive processing resulting in decreased situation awareness has been observed with experienced air traffic controllers (Endsley et al., 1997; Metzger & Parasuraman, 2001) and in other automated tasks (Manzey et al., 2012).”
The effect of interactive analytical dashboard features on situation awareness and task performance
Nadj, M., Maedche, A., & Schieder, C. (2020) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2020.113322 · Cited by 93
Artificial intelligence and administrative evil
Young, M. M., Himmelreich, J., Bullock, J. B., & Kim, K.-C. (2021) · Perspectives on Public Management and Governance · doi:10.1093/ppmgov/gvab006 · Cited by 76
The Effects of Explanations in Automated Essay Scoring Systems on Student Trust and Motivation
Conijn, R., Kahr, P. K., & Snijders, C. C. P. (2023) · Journal of Learning Analytics · doi:10.18608/jla.2023.7801 · Cited by 114
Sauer, J., Chavaillaz, A., & Wastell, D. (2016) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2015.1094577 · Cited by 71
Wesche, J. S., & Sonderegger, A. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106931 · Cited by 99
A conceptual framework of autonomous and automated agents
KABER, D. B. (2017) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/1463922x.2017.1363314 · Cited by 71
On the Relation of Trust and Explainability: Why to Engineer for Trustworthiness
Kastner, L., Langer, M., Lazar, V., Schomacker, A., Speith, T., & Sterz, S. (2021) · 2021 IEEE 29th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW) · doi:10.1109/rew53955.2021.00031 · Cited by 61
Level of Automation Forms a Key Aspect of Autonomy Design
Endsley, M. R. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/1555343417723432 · Cited by 66
AI-enabled investment advice: Will users buy it?
Chua, A. Y. K., Pal, A., & Banerjee, S. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107481 · Cited by 79
Ötting, S. K., Masjutin, L., Steil, J. J., & Maier, G. W. (2020) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720820966433 · Cited by 74
Wright, J. L., Chen, J. Y. C., & Barnes, M. (2018) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2018.1441449 · Cited by 55
Time Sharing Between Robotics and Process Control
Wickens, C. D., Gutzwiller, R. S., Vieane, A. Z., Clegg, B. A., Sebok, A. L., & Janes, J. (2016) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720815622761 · Cited by 63
Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection
Kupfer, C., Prassl, R., Fleiß, J., Malin, C., Thalmann, S., & Kubicek, B. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1118723 · Cited by 59
“Therefore, a system error, i.e., an imperfect recommendation, might not be detected, resulting in the acceptance of a deflective decision (Parasuraman et al., 2000; Alberdi et al., 2009; Manzey et al., 2012).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialThe effect of cognitive load and task complexity on automation bias in electronic prescribing
Lyell, D., Magrabi, F., & Coiera, E. (2018) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720818781224 · Cited by 67
Deb, S., Carruth, D. W., & Hudson, C. R. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · doi:10.1109/thms.2019.2960517 · Cited by 58
Mueller, A. S., Reagan, I. J., & Cicchino, J. B. (2021) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/1555343420983126 · Cited by 52
Informal governance in the digital transformation
Keller, J., Burkhardt, P., & Lasch, R. (2021) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/ijopm-09-2020-0660 · Cited by 51
Kahr, P. K., Rooks, G., Willemsen, M. C., & Snijders, C. C. P. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3686164 · Cited by 49
The Impact of Higher Levels of Automation on Performance and Situation Awareness
Jipp, M., & Ackerman, P. L. (2016) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/1555343416637517 · Cited by 49
Crossing the boundaries of automation - Function allocation and reliability
Onnasch, L. (2015) · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.12.004 · Cited by 38
Self-citationKahr, P. K., Rooks, G., Willemsen, M. C., & Snijders, C. C. P. (2023) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3581641.3584058 · Cited by 51
Mode Awareness and Automated Driving—What Is It and How Can It Be Measured?
Kurpiers, C., Biebl, B., Hernandez, J. M., & Raisch, F. (2020) · Information · doi:10.3390/info11050277 · Cited by 43
Influence of human-machine interactions and task demand on automation selection and use
Navarro, J., Heuveline, L., Avril, E., & Cegarra, J. (2018) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2018.1501517 · Cited by 32
A Case Study of Trust on Autonomous Driving
Sheng, S., Pakdamanian, E., Han, K., Kim, B., Tiwari, P., Kim, I., & Feng, L. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) · doi:10.1109/itsc.2019.8917251 · Cited by 42
Vuori, N., Burkhard, B., & Pitkäranta, L. (2025) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.13177 · Cited by 54
Fischer, J. E., Greenhalgh, C., Jiang, W., Ramchurn, S. D., Wu, F., & Rodden, T. A. (2017) · Concurrency and Computation Practice and Experience · doi:10.1002/cpe.4082 · Cited by 37
Michailovs, S., Visser, T. A. W., Huf, S., & Loft, S. D. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037/xap0000126 · Cited by 37
The Underpinnings of Workload in Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Hooey, B., Kaber, D., Adams, J. A., Fong, T., & Gore, B. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · doi:10.1109/thms.2017.2759758 · Cited by 36
A function-to-task process model for adaptive automation system design
Bindewald, J. M., Miller, M. E., & Peterson, G. L. (2014) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.07.004 · Cited by 37
The Burden of Reviewing LLM-Generated Content
Ohde, J. W., Rost, L. M., & Overgaard, J. D. (2025) · NEJM AI · doi:10.1056/aip2400979 · Cited by 36
Hoesterey, S., & Onnasch, L. (2022) · Cognition Technology & Work · doi:10.1007/s10111-022-00718-y · Cited by 40
Self-citationIntelligent autonomous agents and trust in virtual reality
Sun, N., & Botev, J. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100146 · Cited by 36
Wixted, F., Shevlin, M. E., & O'Sullivan, L. W. (2018) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2018.1449253 · Cited by 36
How users adjust trust in automation
Yang, X. J., Wickens, C. D., & Hölttä‐Otto, K. (2016) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931213601044 · Cited by 40
Gao, Z., Wen-min, L., Liang, J., Hanxi, P. A. N., Xu, W., & Shen, M. (2021) · Advances in Psychological Science · doi:10.3724/sp.j.1042.2021.02172 · Cited by 34
When Algorithms Err : Differential Impact of Early vs. Late Errors on Users’ Reliance on Algorithms
Kim, A., Yang, M., & Zhang, J. (2020) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3557889 · Cited by 42
The AI‐augmented crowd: How human crowdvoters adopt AI (or not)
Freisinger, E., Unfried, M., & Schneider, S. (2023) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/jpim.12708 · Cited by 32
Onnasch, L., Ruff, S., & Manzey, D. (2014) · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.05.001 · Cited by 27
Self-citationLuo, R., Du, N., & Yang, X. J. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2097602 · Cited by 28
Poornikoo, M., Gyldensten, W., Vesin, B., & Øvergård, K. I. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2399439 · Cited by 30
TIP: A Trust Inference and Propagation Model in Multi-Human Multi-Robot Teams
Guo, Y., Yang, X. J., & Shi, C. (2023) · Autonomous Robots · doi:10.1007/s10514-024-10175-3 · Cited by 37
Göndöcs, D., Horváth, S., & Dörfler, V. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2025.103622 · Cited by 39
Models of Automation Surprise: Results of a Field Survey in Aviation
de Boer, R. J., & Dekker, S. W. A. (2017) · Safety · doi:10.3390/safety3030020 · Cited by 30
Development and Preliminary Evaluation of Reliability Displays for Automated Lane Keeping
Noah, B. E., Gable, T. M., Chen, S.-Y., Singh, S., & Walker, B. N. (2017) · International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI) · doi:10.1145/3122986.3123007 · Cited by 27
Bringing Together Ergonomic Concepts and Cognitive Mechanisms for Human—AI Agents Cooperation
Guillou, M. L., Prévot, L., & Berberian, B. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2129741 · Cited by 34
Huang, H., Rau, P. P., & Liang Ma, A. (2021) · Advanced Robotics · doi:10.1080/01691864.2021.1974940 · Cited by 28
Yang, X. J., Guo, Y., & Schemanske, C. (2022) · Automation, collaboration, and e-services · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-10784-9_15 · Cited by 26
Sauer, J., & Chavaillaz, A. (2018) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/1463922x.2017.1297866 · Cited by 26
Tenhundfeld, N. L., Demir, M., & de Visser, E. J. (2022) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/15553434221096261 · Cited by 26
Evaluating the Impact of Uncertainty Visualization on Model Reliance
Zhao, J. L., Wang, Y., Mancenido, M. V., Chiou, E. K., & Maciejewski, R. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2023.3251950 · Cited by 26
Testing the Efficacy of Human-Human Trust Repair Strategies with Machines
Quinn, D. B., Pak, R., & de Visser, E. J. (2017) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931213601930 · Cited by 22
The Trust Recovery Journey. The Effect of Timing of Errors on the Willingness to Follow AI Advice.
Kahr, P. K., Rooks, G., Snijders, C., & Willemsen, M. C. (2024) · Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3640543.3645167 · Cited by 21
Pütten, A. M. R.-V. D., & Sach, A. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1416504 · Cited by 28
Kaltenbach, E. K., & Dolgov, I. (2017) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931213601558 · Cited by 21
The Benefits and Costs of Low and High Degree of Automation
Tatasciore, M., Bowden, V. K., Visser, T. A. W., Michailovs, S., & Loft, S. D. (2019) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720819867181 · Cited by 21
Reputation Based Trust In Human-Agent Teamwork Without Explicit Coordination
Hafızoğlu, F. M., & Sen, S. (2018) · International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (HAI) · doi:10.1145/3284432.3284454 · Cited by 21
Lean back or lean in? Exploring social loafing in human–robot teams
Cymek, D. H., Truckenbrodt, A., & Onnasch, L. (2023) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2023.1249252 · Cited by 19
Self-citationUnderstanding the Influences of Past Experience on Trust in Human-agent Teamwork
Hafızoğlu, F. M., & Sen, S. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Internet Technology · doi:10.1145/3324300 · Cited by 23
Pak, R., McLaughlin, A. C., Leidheiser, W., & Rovira, E. M. (2016) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2016.1189599 · Cited by 22
Kim, J. Y., Lester, C., & Yang, X. J. (2025) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208251326795 · Cited by 21
Fair governance with humans and machines.
Hermstrüwer, Y., & Langenbach, P. (2023) · Psychology, Public Policy, and Law · doi:10.1037/law0000381 · Cited by 19
Avril, E. (2022) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2022.2069870 · Cited by 21
Frazier, S., Pitts, B. J., & McComb, S. A. (2022) · Cognition Technology & Work · doi:10.1007/s10111-022-00708-0 · Cited by 19
Pütz, S., Mertens, A., Chuang, L. L., & Nitsch, V. (2023) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2023.2289858 · Cited by 19
A human factors perspective on the use of automated aids in the evaluation of NDT data
Bertovic, M. (2016) · AIP conference proceedings · doi:10.1063/1.4940449 · Cited by 12
Reduced Verification of Medication Alerts Increases Prescribing Errors
Lyell, D., Magrabi, F., & Coiera, E. W. (2019) · Applied Clinical Informatics · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1677009 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Manzey, D., Reichenbach, J., & Onnasch, L.
- Affiliations
- Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
- Venue
- Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-01-13
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 57-87
- ISSN
- 1555-3434 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2127333783
- Cited by
- 277
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 5
- FWCI
- 11.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making (publishedVersion)
- 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
- automated decision aids, human-automation interaction, levels of automation, supervisory control, workload, automation bias, complacency, operator experience, commission errors, cross-checking, automation failure
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
