Effect of Imperfect Information and Action Automation on Attentional Allocation

ABSTRACT Previous research has suggested that information and action automation stages do not imply the same consequences for human performance in the supervision of automated systems. Still, only a few studies have simultaneously investigated these stages. When information and action automation are reliable, both can support performance. However, with unreliable aids, the literature has suggested that action automation tends to be more detrimental than information automation. This study aimed to assess the contributions of imperfect information and action automation on attentional allocation and to investigate a potential monitoring inefficiency in a multitasking environment. Participants (n = 96) completed three Multi-Attribute Task Battery (MATB) tasks. A monitoring task was automated with two types of automation (action or information) of four reliabilities each (0%; 56.25%; 87.5%; 100%). Ocular behaviors and performance were assessed. Results show that reliability of information automation influenced visual resource allocation. When information automation was the most reliable, participants spent the least amount of time sampling the monitoring task. Finally, the reliability of action automation triggered no effect on performance or cumulative dwell times. Our results suggest that in complex multitasking situations where information and action automation occurred simultaneously, participants allocated fewer visual resources to automated task with increased information automation reliability. Similarly, their performance was better only with increased information automation.

[1]  J. Hoc.  La relation homme-machine en situation dynamique , 2000 .

[2]  David Wesley,et al.  Complacency and Automation Bias in the Enbridge Pipeline Disaster , 2017 .

[3]  Amanda J. Ashdown,et al.  System Reliability, Trust, and Complacency in Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring , 2016 .

[4]  Joachim Meyer,et al.  Conceptual Issues in the Study of Dynamic Hazard Warnings , 2004, Hum. Factors.

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

[6]  Eric T. Chancey,et al.  Automation trust and attention allocation in multitasking workspace. , 2018, Applied ergonomics.

[7]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Effects of Information and Decision Automation on Multi-Task Performance , 2002 .

[8]  Mustapha Mouloua,et al.  Effects of automation reliability on error detection and attention to auditory stimuli in a multi-tasking environment. , 2020, Applied ergonomics.

[9]  Mary L. Cummings,et al.  Operator scheduling strategies in supervisory control of multiple UAVs , 2007 .

[10]  Makoto Itoh,et al.  A Microworld Approach to Identifying Issues of Human-Automation Systems Design for Supporting Operator's Situation Awareness , 2004, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[11]  Lisanne Bainbridge,et al.  Ironies of automation , 1982, Autom..

[12]  G. Jamieson,et al.  CONSIDERING SUBJECTIVE TRUST AND MONITORING BEHAVIOR IN ASSESSING AUTOMATION-INDUCED “COMPLACENCY” , 2004 .

[13]  Pascale Carayon,et al.  Human Factors of Health Information Technology—Challenges and Opportunities , 2017, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[14]  Jürgen Sauer,et al.  System reliability, performance and trust in adaptable automation. , 2016, Applied ergonomics.

[15]  Linda Onnasch,et al.  Human Performance Consequences of Automated Decision Aids in States of Fatigue , 2009 .

[16]  I. Singh,et al.  Individual differences in monitoring failures of automation , 1993 .

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

[18]  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.

[19]  Mark W. Scerbo,et al.  Automation-induced complacency for monitoring highly reliable systems: the role of task complexity, system experience, and operator trust , 2007 .

[20]  M. Hagen,et al.  Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. , 2002, The American psychologist.

[21]  K. Mosier,et al.  Human Decision Makers and Automated Decision Aids: Made for Each Other? , 1996 .

[22]  Huiyang Li,et al.  Human Performance Consequences of Stages and Levels of Automation , 2014, Hum. Factors.

[23]  J. R. Comstock.  MAT - MULTI-ATTRIBUTE TASK BATTERY FOR HUMAN OPERATOR WORKLOAD AND STRATEGIC BEHAVIOR RESEARCH , 1994 .

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

[25]  John C. Norcross,et al.  Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct , 2013 .

[26]  Greg A. Jamieson,et al.  The impact of context-related reliability on automation failure detection and scanning behaviour , 2004, 2004 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37583).

[27]  J Cegarra,et al.  OpenMATB: A Multi-Attribute Task Battery promoting task customization, software extensibility and experiment replicability , 2020, Behavior Research Methods.

[28]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Monitoring an Automated System for a Single Failure: Vigilance and Task Complexity Effects , 1996, Hum. Factors.

[29]  Huiyang Li,et al.  Using Modeling and Simulation to Predict Operator Performance and Automation-Induced Complacency With Robotic Automation , 2015, Hum. Factors.

[30]  L. M. Jones,et al.  Effect of repeated function allocation and reliability on automation -induced monitoring inefficiency , 2007 .

[31]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Complacency and Automation Bias in the Use of Imperfect Automation , 2015, Hum. Factors.

[32]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[33]  Craig Bonaceto,et al.  Displaying Contextual Information Reduces the Costs of Imperfect Decision Automation in Rapid Retasking of ISR Assets , 2014, Hum. Factors.

[34]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Display Integration Enhances Information Sampling and Decision Making in Automated Fault Management in a Simulated Spaceflight Micro-World , 2002, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[35]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: a synthesis of the literature , 2007 .

[36]  Jordan Navarro,et al.  Influence of human-machine interactions and task demand on automation selection and use , 2018, Ergonomics.

[37]  Yamira Santiago-Espada,et al.  The Multi-Attribute Task Battery II (MATB-II) Software for Human Performance and Workload Research: A User's Guide , 2011 .

[38]  Leif Jarle Gressgård.  A Publication of the Association of Management AUTOMATION SYSTEMS AND WORK PROCESS SAFETY : ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HUMAN AND ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS IN OFFSHORE DRILLING AUTOMATION , 2013 .

[39]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration , 2010, Hum. Factors.

[40]  François Osiurak,et al.  Highly Automated Driving Impact on Drivers’ Gaze Behaviors during a Car-Following Task , 2019, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[41]  Jordan Navarro,et al.  A state of science on highly automated driving , 2019 .

[42]  Linda Onnasch,et al.  Crossing the boundaries of automation - Function allocation and reliability , 2015, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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

[44]  Jordan Navarro,et al.  Obstacle avoidance under automated steering: Impact on driving and gaze behaviours , 2016 .

[45]  Toshiyuki Inagaki,et al.  Attention and complacency , 2000 .

[46]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Performance Consequences of Automation-Induced 'Complacency' , 1993 .

[47]  Mohammad Maifi Hasan Khan,et al.  Investigating the Effect of System Reliability, Risk, and Role on Users' Emotions and Attitudes toward a Safety-Critical Drone System , 2018, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[48]  Guy H. Walker,et al.  AUTOMATING THE DRIVER'S CONTROL TASKS , 2001 .

[49]  Guy H. Walker,et al.  Where Is Computing Driving Cars? , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[50]  D. Woods,et al.  Automation Surprises , 2001 .

[51]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Effects of Training and Automation Reliability on Monitoring Performance in a Flight Simulation Task , 2000 .

[52]  Jean-Michel Hoc,et al.  The role of algorithm and result comprehensibility of automated scheduling on complacency , 2008 .