Static and Adaptable Automation in Simulated Submarine Track Management

Automation that supports lower order information processing levels can potentially reduce the loss of situation awareness associated with static automation, but remains to be tested. Adaptable automation has promised the benefits of adaptive automation without the associated reorienting costs. In the current study, 38 participants completed a simulated submarine track management task with varying taskload under conditions of no automation, static automation, and adaptable automation (where participants decided when to use automation). Static automation reduced workload and improved performance with no cost to situation awareness (compared to no automation). This suggests that low levels of static automation can support performance under varying taskload, however a stronger test of situation awareness is recommended for future studies. Adaptable automation was used during periods of high taskload but was not utilized fully by participants. Adaptable automation maintained situation awareness and lowered workload but provided minimal performance improvements (compared to no automation).

[1]  S. Gronlund,et al.  Situation Awareness , 2006 .

[2]  Michael C. Dorneich,et al.  Analysis of the Risks and Benefits of Flight Deck Adaptive Systems , 2012 .

[3]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Adaptive Automation for Human Supervision of Multiple Uninhabited Vehicles: Effects on Change Detection, Situation Awareness, and Mental Workload , 2009 .

[4]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Pilots' Monitoring Strategies and Performance on Automated Flight Decks: An Empirical Study Combining Behavioral and Eye-Tracking Data , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[5]  Heath A. Ruff,et al.  Performance-based Adaptive Automation for Supervisory Control , 2011 .

[6]  Shayne Loft,et al.  Using the situation present assessment method to measure situation awareness in simulated submarine track management , 2013 .

[7]  Ass,et al.  Can computers be teammates? , 1996 .

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

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

[10]  R. Goldman,et al.  Implications of Adaptive vs . Adaptable UIs on Decision Making : Why “ Automated Adaptiveness ” is Not Always the Right Answer , 2005 .

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

[12]  A Kirlik,et al.  Modeling Strategic Behavior in Human-Automation Interaction: Why an "Aid" Can (and Should) Go Unused , 1993, Human factors.

[13]  David B. Kaber,et al.  Adaptive Automation of a Dynamic Control Task Based on Secondary Task Workload Measurement , 1999 .

[14]  David B. Kaber,et al.  Comparison of Performance Effects of Adaptive Automation Applied to Various Stages of Human-Machine System Information Processing , 2002 .

[15]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Design and Evaluation for Situation Awareness Enhancement , 1988 .

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

[17]  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 .

[18]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Human and Computer Control of Undersea Teleoperators , 1978 .

[19]  Heath A. Ruff,et al.  Tailored Performance-based Adaptive Levels of Automation , 2012 .

[20]  Shayne Loft,et al.  Situation Awareness Measures for Simulated Submarine Track Management , 2015, Hum. Factors.