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
Items 201–276 of 276
Who Gets More Trust—AI or Humans, and Why? A Cross-Cultural Analysis of AI and Interpersonal Trust
Zhang, H., Jing, Y., & Gu, R. (2026) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs16030320 · Cited by 3
Onnasch, L., Hoesterey, S., & Fahrner, V. M. (2023) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/21695067231192910 · Cited by 3
Self-citationPredicting Trust Dynamics Type Using Seven Personal Characteristics
Chung, H., & Yang, X. J. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · doi:10.1109/thms.2025.3627578 · Cited by 3
Effects of Individual Differences on Human-Agent Teaming for Multi-robot Control
Chen, J. Y. C., Quinn, S. A., Wright, J. L., & Barnes, M. J. (2013) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39360-0_30 · Cited by 3
Kidwell, B., Miller, W. D., & Parasuraman, R. (2014) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931214581050 · Cited by 3
A Study on the Human and the Automation in Automated Driving: Getting to Know Each Other
Altendorf, E., Schütz, R., Canpolat, Y., Weßel, G., & Flemisch, F. O. (2017) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60441-1_65 · Cited by 3
Evaluating the Influence of Incorrect Reassurances on Trust in Imperfect Automated Decision Aid
Kim, J., Richie, O., & Yang, X. J. (2024) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/10711813241264498 · Cited by 3
Sun, Q., Yao, J., Cheng, P., & Hou, S. (2024) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2024.2420183 · Cited by 2
Predicting Return-to-Manual Performance in Lower- and Higher-Degree Automation
Griffiths, N., Bowden, V. K., Wee, S., & Loft, S. D. (2025) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208251323101 · Cited by 2
Bowden, V. K., Gegoff, I., Kilpatrick, P., & Loft, S. D. (2025) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208251335536 · Cited by 2
Assessment and Prediction of Remote Operators’ Mental Workload Through AoI Data in AV Scenarios
Valerio, A., Nguyen, H. P., Ihme, K. A., & Walocha, F. (2025) · Mensch und Computer (MuC) · doi:10.1145/3743049.3748583 · Cited by 2
Enhancing Visual Search in Large Naturalistic Environments with Augmented Reality Cueing
Warden, A. C., Dawkins, K., & Johnson, M. D. (2025) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/10711813251374163 · Cited by 2
Digital Partnerships: Understanding Delegation and Interaction With Virtual Agents
Sun, N., & Botev, J. (2024) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1006301 · Cited by 2
Yang, Y., Guo, B., Xu, Z., & Xie, J. (2025) · Nuclear Technology · doi:10.1080/00295450.2025.2481359 · Cited by 2
A Human Cognitive Performance Measure Based on Available Options for Adaptive Aiding
Hasselberg, A., & Söffker, D. (2013) · IFAC Proceedings Volumes · doi:10.3182/20130811-5-us-2037.00012 · Cited by 2
Hsiung, C.-P., & Chiou, E. K. (2019) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1071181319631039 · Cited by 2
The Face of Trust: Using Facial Action Units (AUs) as Indicators of Trust in Automation
Chua, J. S. K., Xu, H. W., & Lye, S. W. (2021) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-85540-6_34 · Cited by 2
Du, N., Haspiel, J., Zhang, Q., Tilbury, D. M., Pradhan, A. K., Yang, X. J., & Robert, L. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.08878 · Cited by 2
Conijn, R., Kahr, P. K., & Snijders, C. C. P. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/tgpf4 · Cited by 2
Salatino, A., Prével, A., Caspar, É. A., & Bue, S. L. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.12.19.572326 · Cited by 1
Breathing Life Into Artificial Intelligence*
Trivedi, H., & Gichoya, J. W. (2024) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000006124 · Cited by 2
Individual differences in multi-tasking ability moderate the benefits of using low-degree automation
Greenwell-Barnden, J. N., Loft, S. D., Bowden, V. K., Bender, A. D., Whitney, S. J., Lipp, O. V., & Visser, T. A. W. (2025) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/1463922x.2024.2446848 · Cited by 1
Manger, C., Vogl, A., & Riener, A. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app152011030 · Cited by 1
Demystifying the drivers of algorithm aversion: a fuzzy AHP perspective
Gupta, M., Gupta, S., Kaur, S., & Joshi, M. (2025) · Total Quality Management & Business Excellence · doi:10.1080/14783363.2025.2601964 · Cited by 1
Li, W., Li, Z., & Yin, Y. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2626814 · Cited by 1
Zheng, Z., You, W., Shao, Y., Zhou, M., Zhao, X., Ye, Y., Lu, Y., Zhou, Z., & Sun, L. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2623219 · Cited by 1
Greenwell-Barnden, J., Visser, T. A. W., Loft, S., Whitney, S. J., & Bowden, V. K. (2026) · Hum. Factors · doi:10.1177/00187208261431968 · Cited by 1
Artificial Intelligence-Based Digital Transformation
Volpentesta, T. (2026) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-80592-096-020261002 · Cited by 1
Kim, J., Rowell, B. E., Whitaker, M., Chen, Q.-Y., Kontar, R. A., Lester, C., & Yang, X. (2026) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/92822 · Cited by 1
The Effects of Age and Working Memory Demands on Automation-Induced Complacency
Leidheiser, W., & Pak, R. (2014) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931214581401 · Cited by 1
Development of tools for the analysis of messages in controlled social network environments
Garrard, W. (2017) · D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) · Cited by 1
Stepping stone to smarter supervision: a human-centered multidisciplinary framework
Mailliez, M., Chevroton, H., Briand, C., Truillet, P., & Lemercier, C. (2023) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-32-399208-4.00011-8 · Cited by 1
Numerical versus graphical aids for decision-making in a multi-cue signal identification task
Szulc, J., & Fletcher, K. I. (2024) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104260 · Cited by 1
NDE 4.0: New Paradigm for the NDE Inspection Personnel
Bertovic, M., & Virkkunen, I. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-84477-5_9 · Cited by 1
The Relationship Between Individual Differences in Switching Performance and Task Engagement
Clegg, B. A., & Wickens, C. D. (2016) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931213601067 · Cited by 1
Developments in Implicit Measurements
Ziepert, B., de Vries, P. W., Ufkes, E. G., Toet, A., Anne-Marie, B., Barski, J. J., Spink, A., Riedel, G., & Roy, R. N. (2022) · Frontiers research topics · doi:10.3389/978-2-88974-342-1 · Cited by 1
The Human‐Automation Behavioral Interaction Task (HABIT) analysis framework
Baird, I., Fendley, M. E., & Warren, R. (2022) · Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries · doi:10.1002/hfm.20963 · Cited by 1
Unsettled Issues in Vehicle Autonomy, Artificial Intelligence, and Human-Machine Interaction
Chen, F. (2021) · doi:10.4271/epr2021010 · Cited by 2
Whatis it doing now? Results of a Survey into A utomation Surprise 1
Hurts, K., & de Boer, R. J. (2014)
The Influence of Risk on Trust in Automation
Satterfield, K. (2016) · doi:10.13021/mars/6095
Enhancing autonomy transparency: an option-centric rationale approachPreprint
Luo, R., Du, N., & Yang, X. J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2008.01051
A Built-In Guidance System to Monitor Vital Signs in Space and on Earth
Huerta, R., Kaduk, S. I., Fatai, L., Rusch, H., Weber, T., & Sammito, S. (2024) · Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance · doi:10.3357/amhp.6273.2024
Kim, J. Y., Marshall, V. D., Rowell, B. E., Chen, Q., Zheng, Y., Lee, J. D., Kontar, R. A., Lester, C. A., & Yang, X. J. (2024) · doi:10.2196/preprints.57835
Kim, J. Y., Marshall, V. D., Rowell, B. E., Chen, Q., Zheng, Y., Lee, J. D., Kontar, R. A., Lester, C. A., & Yang, X. J. (2024) · doi:10.2196/preprints.60273
Barnhart, G., Hunter, A., Westwood, D. A., & Neyedli, H. F. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Human-Machine Systems (ICHMS) · doi:10.1109/ichms59971.2024.10555824
Exploring Dynamic Influences on Trust in Human-Autonomy Teaming: An Entropy and Event Layer Analysis
Yin, X., & Gorman, J. C. (2024) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/10711813241286505
Design of proactive interaction of in-vehicle robots based transparency
Wang, J., Yue, T., Liu, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, C., Yan, F., & You, F. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-23606-8.00021-x
Den Teufel mit dem Beelzebub austreiben?
Bizer, K., Filiz, I., Kirchhoff, F., Nahmer, T., & Spiwoks, M. (2024) · doi:10.46850/sofia.9783947850105
Lee, I., Liu, M., & Huang, H. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics · doi:10.1109/tmrb.2025.3552924 · Cited by 2
Tool or Partner: Mental-Aware Human-Robot Collaboration
Ren, J., Liu, Y., Li, P., Meng, X., Dong, Y., & Yuan, X. (2024) · International Conference on Automation, Robotics and Computer Engineering (ICARCE) · doi:10.1109/icarce63054.2024.00076
Keller, J. (2025) · Advances in supply management · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-48750-8_5
Operator Decision-Making in the Deployment of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems: A Scoping Review
Shekh, S., Wiggins, M. W., & Morrison, B. W. (2025) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/15553434251377968 · Cited by 1
When to Seek Help: Trust-Aware Assistance-Seeking in Human-Supervised Autonomy
Mangalindan, D. H., Rovira, E. M., & Srivastava, V. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3773900 · Cited by 1
Thomaschewski, L., Tausch, A., Berretta, S., Vogel, O., & Kluge, A. (2025) · Zeitschrift für wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb · doi:10.1515/zwf-2025-1113
Pak, R., Rovira, E. M., & McLaughlin, A. C. (2026) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2026.2686284 · Cited by 2
TUDORACHE, F. (2025) · Studia Securitatis · doi:10.54989/stusec.2025.19.02.13
Participatory design to support power grid operators in control rooms
Sahel, W. (2024) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/171925daz12e3z4706z96fez5b636f2347a6
Explanation of the artificial agent : exploring the content and format of human interaction with AI
Guillou, M. L. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/31fa6b72z3709z4eb3z81c7z566d1b6cb118
Toward a novel measure of user trust in XAI systems
Miró-Nicolau, M., Moyà-Alcover, G., Jaume-i-Capó, A., Gonzàlez-Hidalgo, M., Ghazel, A., Campello, M. G. S., & Sancho, J. A. P. (2026) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2026.1746591
AI Error Difficulty Modulates the Effectiveness of Explainability in Decision Support Systems
Rieger, T., Schindler, H., Koch, K., & Onnasch, L. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3817603 · Cited by 1
Self-citationEYE-on-HMI is a comprehensive framework designed to track human–machine interfaces in control areas
Kumar, K., Saurabh, K., Patel, A., & Varshney, L. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-30285-5.00014-x
Yuzhen, W., Ruifeng, Y., Qinzixi, W., & Yue, C. (2026) · Advanced Engineering Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.aei.2026.105016
Tong, M., Cui, L., Zhu, S., Zhang, X., & Liu, H. (2026) · Surgical Endoscopy · doi:10.1007/s00464-026-13155-z
Navigating AI Errors: The Role of Mental Models in Human-AI Team Performance
Sanchez, D. N., Lancaster, C., Winokur, E. J., Treiman, L. S., Schutte, P., Bruner, T., & Ingram, J. E. (2026) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/10711813261475166
Li, W., Li, Z., Yin, Y., & Yin, Z. (2026) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2026.2714313
Chen, X., Liu, Y., Ma, Y., Zhang, X., Chen, Y., Wang, Z., Zhang, W., Tian, Y., Gao, Z., & Shen, M. (2026) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208261477486
Westerbeek, H. M. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03284-3
Problematic Reliance on Generative AI in an Anxious Young Adult: Case Report
Armstrong, S. (2026) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/98297
Dhungel, A.-K., Aleknonytė‐Resch, M., Watermann, L. S., Hanke, K., Wolfram, E., & Heine, M. (2026) · International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment · doi:10.1109/icedeg70169.2026.11695473
Alsharabi, N., Hamam, H., Guizani, S., & Hamam, H. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7666038
Kim, J. Y., Lester, C. A., & Yang, X. J. (2026) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/10711813261498756
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
