Effects of Automation Types on Air Traffic Controller Situation Awareness and Performance

The Joint Planning and Development Office has proposed the introduction of automated systems to help air traffic controllers handle the increasing volume of air traffic in the next two decades (JPDO, 2007). Because fully automated systems leave operators out of the decision-making loop (e.g., Billings, 1991), it is important to determine the right level and type of automation that will keep air traffic controllers in the loop. This study examined the differences in the situation awareness (SA) and collision detection performance of individuals when they worked with information acquisition, information analysis, decision and action selection and action implementation automation to control air traffic (Parasuraman, Sheridan, & Wickens, 2000). When the automation was unreliable, the time taken to detect an upcoming collision was significantly longer for all the automation types compared with the information acquisition automation. This poor performance following automation failure was mediated by SA, with lower SA yielding poor performance. Thus, the costs associated with automation failure are greater when automation is applied to higher order stages of information processing. Results have practical implications for automation design and development of SA training programs.

[1]  John D. Lee,et al.  Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance , 2004 .

[2]  M. Sobel Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models , 1982 .

[3]  David B. Kaber,et al.  Situation awareness implications of adaptive automation for information processing in an air traffic control-related task , 2006 .

[4]  David B. Kaber,et al.  Design of Automation for Telerobots and the Effect on Performance, Operator Situation Awareness, and Subjective Workload , 2000 .

[5]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[7]  Nadine B. Sarter,et al.  Supporting Decision Making and Action Selection under Time Pressure and Uncertainty: The Case of In-Flight Icing , 2001, Hum. Factors.

[8]  Anne Treisman,et al.  Features and objects in visual processing , 1986 .

[9]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Measurement of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[10]  Renwick E. Curry,et al.  Flight-deck automation: promises and problems , 1980 .

[11]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Automation in Future Air Traffic Management: Effects of Decision Aid Reliability on Controller Performance and Mental Workload , 2005, Hum. Factors.

[12]  David B. Kaber,et al.  The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task , 2004 .

[13]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  The Out-of-the-Loop Performance Problem and Level of Control in Automation , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[14]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The Transfer of Failure-Detection Skills between Monitoring and Controlling Dynamic Systems , 1982 .

[15]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Effects of Imperfect Automation on Decision Making in a Simulated Command and Control Task , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[16]  Bruce G. Coury,et al.  Status or Recommendation: Selecting the Type of Information for Decision Aiding , 1990 .