No abstract

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Abstract (a) Objective: Participants performed a tracking task and system monitoring task while aided by diagnostic automation. The goal of the study was to examine operator compliance and reliance as affected by automation failures, and to clarify claims regarding independence of these two constructs. (b) Background: Background data revealed a trend towards non-independence of the compliance-reliance constructs. (c) Method: Thirty-two undergraduate students performed the simulation that presented the visual display and collected dependent measures. (d) Results: False alarm prone automation hurt overall performance more than miss-prone automation. False alarm prone automation also clearly affected both operator compliance and reliance, while miss-prone automation only appeared to affect operator reliance. (e) Conclusion: Compliance and reliance do not appear to be entirely independent of each other. (f) Application: False alarms appear to be more damaging to overall performance than misses, and designers must take the compliancereliance constructs into affect.

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Abstract (a) Objective: Participants performed a tracking task and system monitoring task while aided by diagnostic automation. The goal of the study was to examine operator compliance and reliance as affected by automation failures, and to clarify claims regarding independence of these two constructs. (b) Background: Background data revealed a trend towards non-independence of the compliance-reliance constructs. (c) Method: Thirty-two undergraduate students performed the simulation that presented the visual display and collected dependent measures. (d) Results: False alarm prone automation hurt overall performance more than miss-prone automation. False alarm prone automation also clearly affected both operator compliance and reliance, while miss-prone automation only appeared to affect operator reliance. (e) Conclusion: Compliance and reliance do not appear to be entirely independent of each other. (f) Application: False alarms appear to be more damaging to overall performance than misses, and designers must take the compliancereliance constructs into affect.