Consequences of shifting one level of automation to another: main effects and their stability

A simulated space operations environment was used to investigate the effect of changes in the distance between levels of automation (LOA) on operator telerobotic performance. Participants were assigned to four experimental conditions corresponding to four different LOAs. During the simulation they both switched and did not switch between these LOAs. Participants performed three tasks: i) rover task: controlling the rover’s cruise and picking up (by means of a mechanical arm) samples of rocks from the terrain; ii) fault detection task: detecting the occurrence of a fault; and iii) recovery task: remembering the location of each of the simulated operators within the station, in order to recover from the fault. No performance costs were observed when two successive trials involved the same LOA. On the contrary, upward and downward shifts in LOA led to performance costs that were modulated by stage of processing and workload. Particularly, when workload was high, performance was primarily negatively affected when shifting from decision support to manual control (LOA 2 and 0 respectively) in a detection task, whereas the same shift led to a better performance in a working memory task. Finally, moderate LOA seems not to be suited for supporting working memory tasks.

[1]  J. Gregory Trafton,et al.  Preparing to resume an interrupted task: effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[2]  Mustapha Mouloua,et al.  Effects of Adaptive Task Allocation on Monitoring of Automated Systems , 1996, Hum. Factors.

[3]  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.

[4]  N. Moray,et al.  Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

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

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

[7]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  EFFECTS OF UNRELIABLE AUTOMATION ON DECISION MAKING IN COMMAND AND CONTROL , 2002 .

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

[9]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Cognitive performance assessment in a complex space-system microworld: on the use of generalizability theory , 2003 .

[10]  A.W.K. Gaillard,et al.  Operator Functional State: The Assessment and Prediction of Human Performance Degradation in Complex Tasks , 2003 .

[11]  Michael J. Singer,et al.  Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire , 1998, Presence.

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

[13]  Heath A. Ruff,et al.  Human Interaction with Levels of Automation and Decision-Aid Fidelity in the Supervisory Control of Multiple Simulated Unmanned Air Vehicles , 2002, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[14]  J. M. Peter,et al.  The Efficacy of Psychophysiological Measures for Implementing Adaptive Technology , 2001 .

[15]  M R Endsley,et al.  Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. , 1999, Ergonomics.

[16]  M. Kenward,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 2007 .

[17]  Wayne D. Gray.  Simulated task environments: The role of high-fidelity simulations, scaled worlds, synthetic environments, and laboratory tasks in basic and applied cognitive research. , 2002 .

[18]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Examination of the proximity-compatibility principle in the design of displays in support of fault management in automated systems , 2003 .