The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How in the World Did We Ever Get into That Mode? Mode Error and Awareness in Supervisory Control
Abstract
New technology is flexible in the sense that it provides practitioners with a large number of functions and options for carrying out a given task under different circumstances. However, this flexibility has a price. Because the human supervisor must select the mode best suited to a particular situation, he or she must know more than before about system operations and the operation of the system as well as satisfy new monitoring and attentional demands to track which mode the automation is in and what it is doing to manage the underlying processes. When designers proliferate modes without supporting these new cognitive demands, new mode-related error forms and failure paths can result. Mode error has been discussed in human-computer interaction for some time; however, the increased capabilities and the high level of autonomy of new automated systems appear to have created new types of mode-related problems. We explore these new aspects based on results from our own and related studies of human-automation interaction. In particular, we draw on empirical data from a series of studies of pilot-automation interaction in commercial glass cockpit aircraft to illustrate the nature, circumstances, and potential consequences of mode awareness problems in supervisory control of automated resources. The result is an expanded view of mode error that takes into account the new demands imposed by more automated systems.
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
Categorization of action slips
Norman, D. A. (1981) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.88.1.1 · Cited by 1,736
Cited by
State of science: mental workload in ergonomics
Young, M. S., Brookhuis, K. A., Wickens, C. D., & Hancock, P. A. (2015) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2014.956151 · Cited by 948
Situation Awareness Misconceptions and Misunderstandings
Endsley, M. R. (2015) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/1555343415572631 · Cited by 501
The paradoxes of almost totally safe transportation systems
Amalberti, R. (2001) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/s0925-7535(00)00045-x · Cited by 484
Miller, C. A., & Parasuraman, R. (2007) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872007779598037 · Cited by 434
Intelligent agent transparency in human–agent teaming for multi-UxV management
Mercado, J. E., Rupp, M. A., Chen, J. Y. C., Barnes, M. J., Barber, D., & Procci, K. (2016) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720815621206 · Cited by 403
Metadata
- Authors
- Sarter, N. B., & Woods, D. D.
- Venue
- Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1995-03
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5-19
- ISSN
- 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-8181
- OpenAlex
- W2057366010
- Cited by
- 849
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.23
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How in the World Did We Ever Get into That Mode? Mode Error and Awareness in Supervisory Control. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1518/001872095779049516
- The paper
- Sarter, N. B., & Woods, D. D. (1995). How in the World Did We Ever Get into That Mode? Mode Error and Awareness in Supervisory Control. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049516
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.