The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of Imperfect Automation on Decision Making in a Simulated Command and Control Task
Abstract
Objective: Effects of four types of automation support and two levels of automation reliability were examined. The objective was to examine the differential impact of information and decision automation and to investigate the costs of automation unreliability. Background: Research has shown that imperfect automation can lead to differential effects of stages and levels of automation on human performance. Method: Eighteen participants performed a “sensor to shooter” targeting simulation of command and control. Dependent variables included accuracy and response time of target engagement decisions, secondary task performance, and subjective ratings of mental workload, trust, and self-confidence. Results: Compared with manual performance, reliable automation significantly reduced decision times. Unreliable automation led to greater cost in decision-making accuracy under the higher automation reliability condition for three different forms of decision automation relative to information automation. At low automation reliability, however, there was a cost in performance for both information and decision automation. Conclusion: The results are consistent with a model of human-automation interaction that requires evaluation of the different stages of information processing to which automation support can be applied. Application: If fully reliable decision automation cannot be guaranteed, designers should provide users with information automation support or other tools that allow for inspection and analysis of raw data.
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.
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
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
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 · cited 1×
“The relationship between subjective ratings of trust and automation usage is complex and depends on a range of environmental and individual factors (Dzindolet, Pierce, Beck, & Dawe, 2001; see review by Lee & See, 2004).”
BackgroundHumans 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
Self-citationA 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 4×
“The sensor to shooter loop can be directly mapped to the Parasuraman et al. (2000) model: Target information is first acquired from sensors, subsequently analyzed further before a course of action is decided on, and finally acted upon.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationENDSLEY, M. R., & KABER, D. B. (1999) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/001401399185595 · Cited by 1,088
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 2×
“…range of automation reliability effects on decision making as well as a comparison with previous work on automation complacency in which automation reliability was varied and operator reliance on automated aiding was evaluated (May, Molloy, & Parasuraman, 1993; Parasuraman, Molloy, & Singh, 1993).”
BackgroundResultSelf-citationThe 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 1×
“In a recent review, Wickens and Dixon (2005) suggested that human performance is sensitive to the level of automation imperfection.”
BackgroundAutomated 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
Status or Recommendation: Selecting the Type of Information for Decision Aiding
Crocoll, W. M., & Coury, B. G. (1990) · Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193129003401922 · Cited by 68
Cited by
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
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
Self-citationFrom 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
Self-citationHuman 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Rovira, E., McGarry, K., & Parasuraman, R.
- Venue
- Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-02
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 76-87
- ISSN
- 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-8181
- OpenAlex
- W2091455316
- Cited by
- 279
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 13.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.
