On the Independence of Compliance and Reliance: Are Automation False Alarms Worse Than Misses?

Dixon, Stephen; Wickens, Christopher D.; McCarley, Jason S.

doi:10.1518/001872007x215656

Cited by 221 publications

(157 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

141

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…FAP alerts not only affected their automated task but also the concurrent task. This finding is consistent with the conclusion of Dixon et al (2007) that FAP degraded overall performance more than MP automation. However, it is worth noting that for low PAC participants, we observed the opposite pattern: MP automation was more harmful than FAP automation.…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Concurrent Performance Of Military and Robosupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Similarly, Dixon and Wickens (2006) showed that FAs and misses affected compliance and reliance, respectively, and their effects appeared to be relatively independent of each other. In contrast to Meyer's model and the aforementioned findings, Dixon et al (2007) showed that FAP automation impaired "performance more on the automated task than did miss- …”

contrasting

confidence: 75%

“…More mental and visual resources would be devoted to checking the raw data for the automated task, and therefore, the performance of the concurrent task would be degraded. On the other hand, there was evidence that FAP automation was more detrimental to both the automated and concurrent tasks than MP automation (Dixon et al, 2007). Therefore, it is likely that FAP automation would have a more negative impact on the overall performance than would MP automation.…”

Section: Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effectiveness of Concurrent Performance of Military and Robotics Tasks and Effects of Cueing and Individual Differences in a Simulated Reconnaissance Environment

Chen¹

2009

Advances in Human-Robot Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction BackgroundThe goal of this research is to examine if and how aided target recognition (AiTR) cueing capabilities facilitates multitasking (including operating a robot) by gunners in a military tank crewstation environment. Specifically, we examine if gunners are able to effectively perform their primary task -maintaining local security -while performing a pair of secondary tasks: (1) managing a robot and (2) communications with fellow crew members. According to Mitchell (2005), who used the Improved Performance Research Integration Tool (IMPRINT) to examine the workload of the crew of a future tank system, the gunner is the most viable option for performing the robotics control tasks compared to the other two positions (i.e. vehicle commander and driver). She found that the gunner had the fewest instances of overload and, therefore, may be able to assume control of the robot. However, she also discovered that there were instances in the model when the gunner dropped his/her primary tasks of detecting and engaging targets to perform robotics tasks, which could be catastrophic for the team and mission during a real operation. If the gunner is the individual who will most likely be assigned the responsibility of robotics control, then it is important to consider what design changes will be necessary to allow successful multitasking without a critical performance decrement in maintaining local security. Based on Mitchell's modeling work, Chen and Joyner (2009) conducted a simulation experiment and the results showed that, when the robotics operator had to perform robot targeting and local security (i.e. gunner's tasks) at the same time, both workload and performance degraded, compared with a baseline single-task condition. More specifically, as the robotics task became more difficult, the participants' gunnery task performance became worse and their workload assessment also increased. Indeed, past research in dual task performance has shown that operators may encounter difficulties when both tasks involve focal vision. For example, Horrey and Wickens (2004) demonstrated that participants could not effectively detect road hazards while operating in-vehicle-devices. Additionally, Murray (1994) found that as the number of monitored displays increased, the operators' reaction time for their target search tasks also increased linearly. In fact, response times almost www.intechopen.com Advances in Human-Robot Interaction 234 doubled when the number of displays increased from 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3 (a slope of 1.94 was obtained). Since both the gunnery and the robotics tasks in Chen and Joyner were heavily visual, we considered tapping into another modality -touch. Our hypothesis was that parsing additional information by using relatively untapped modalities might alleviate the resource demands and could help the operator effectively transition between displays (Wickens, 2002). Tactile cueingIn the current study, we examined if and how tactile cueing, which delivered simulated AiTR capabilities (i.e. cues to t...

show abstract

Section: Effectiveness Of Concurrent Performance Of Military and Robosupporting

confidence: 92%

contrasting

confidence: 75%

Section: Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effectiveness of Concurrent Performance of Military and Robotics Tasks and Effects of Cueing and Individual Differences in a Simulated Reconnaissance Environment

Chen¹

2009

Advances in Human-Robot Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, these two offsetting trends of lowering the threshold, leading to (a) less concurrent task disruption (because of more reliance when the alarm is silent) and (b) more disruption (because of an increasing number of alarms), seem to be reflected by the relatively ambiguous pattern of concurrent task performance that has been observed in dual-task experiments as alert threshold has been varied Dixon, Wickens, & McCarley, 2007;Levinthal & Wickens, 2005;Wickens, Dixon, & Johnson, 2006;Wickens, Dixon, Goh, et al, 2005;see Wickens, Dixon, & Ambinder, 2006, for a summary). A goal of the current study is to examine the effect of varying the alert threshold of an airborne conflict alerting system on processing the alert itself and on concurrent task performance.…”

Section: Dual-task Performance Consequences Of Imperfect Alerting Assmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dual-Task Performance Consequences of Imperfect Alerting Associated With a Cockpit Display of Traffic Information

Wickens

Colcombe

2007

Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Performance consequences related to integrating an imperfect alert within a complex task domain were examined in two experiments. Background: Cockpit displays of traffic information (CDTIs) are being designed for use in airplane cockpits as responsibility for safe separation becomes shared between pilots and controllers. Of interest in this work is how characteristics of the alarm system such as threshold, modality, and number of alert levels impact concurrent task (flight control) performance and response to potential conflicts. Methods: Student pilots performed a tracking task analogous to flight control while simultaneously monitoring for air traffic conflicts with the aid of a CDTI alert as the threshold, modality, and level of alert was varied. Results: As the alerting system became more prone to false alerts, pilot compliance decreased and concurrent performance improved. There was some evidence of auditory preemption with auditory alerts as the false alarm rate increased. Finally, there was no benefit to a three-level system over a two-level system. Conclusion: There is justification for increased false alarm rates, as miss-prone systems appear to be costly. The 4:1 false alarm to miss ratio employed here improved accuracy and concurrent task performance. More research needs to address the potential benefits of likelihood alerting. Application: The issues addressed in this research can be applied to any imperfect alerting system such as in aviation, driving, or air traffic control. It is crucial to understand the performance consequences of new technology and the efficacy of potential mitigating design features within the specific context desired.

show abstract

“…Compliance refers to the tendency to perform an action when the warning system instructs the operator to perform this action, whereas reliance refers to the tendency to refrain from performing an action when the warning system does not indicate that it is necessary. Compliance and reliance may be differently affected by automation false alarms and misses (Dixon & Wickens, 2006;Dixon, Wickens, & McCarley, 2007;Parasuraman & Wickens, 2008;Wickens & Colcombe, 2007).…”

Section: Analysis Of Operators' Reliance On Binary Warning Systems Bymentioning

confidence: 99%

Drivers’ Reliance on Lane-Keeping Assistance Systems as a Function of the Level of Assistance

Popken

Krems

2015

Z. Arb. Wiss.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the Independence of Compliance and Reliance: Are Automation False Alarms Worse Than Misses?

Cited by 221 publications

References 9 publications

Effectiveness of Concurrent Performance of Military and Robotics Tasks and Effects of Cueing and Individual Differences in a Simulated Reconnaissance Environment

Effectiveness of Concurrent Performance of Military and Robotics Tasks and Effects of Cueing and Individual Differences in a Simulated Reconnaissance Environment

Dual-Task Performance Consequences of Imperfect Alerting Associated With a Cockpit Display of Traffic Information

Drivers’ Reliance on Lane-Keeping Assistance Systems as a Function of the Level of Assistance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About