Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation

Muir, Bonnie M.; Moray, Neville

doi:10.1080/00140139608964474

Cited by 769 publications

(588 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

553

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent across different levels of automation, inappropriate levels of trust lead to extended reaction times or poorer reaction quality in hazardous situations (Abe, Itoh, & Tanaka, 2002;McGuirl & Sarter, 2006;Parasuraman & Riley, 1997). The causal mechanism could lie in participants' monitoring strategy: Muir and Moray (1996) as well as Bagheri and Jamieson (2004) found a decrease in monitoring with increasing trust. Hergeth et al (2016) also reported a negative correlation between participant's trust in automation and the extent of monitoring of a highly automated driving system during the engagement with an NDRT.…”

Section: The Role Of Trust In Automated Drivingmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…However, these claimed benefits may only occur if automated vehicles are successfully implemented into road traffic and trust in this technology is a vital precondition for this. Ghazizadeh, Lee, and Boyle (2012) stated in their Automation Acceptance Model that trust is a crucial contributor to an individual's acceptability of automation technology and several previous studies have empirically shown that trust is a key determinant for reliance on automated systems (Bailey & Scerbo, 2007;Muir & Moray, 1996), adoption of automation (Gefen, Karahanna, & Straub, 2003;Lee & Moray, 1994), and the intention to use autonomous vehicles (Choi & Ji, 2015). In other words, operators tend to use automation that they trust while rejecting automation that they do not (Pop, Shrewsbury, & Durso, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This degree does not have to exclusively concern a system as a whole but may be specific to particular functions of it. For example, in a study on a supervisory process control task, trust was distinct to the specific automatic controller (Lee & Moray, 1994) and an automation failure did not cause trust to decline in the remaining similar, but independent automatic controllers (Lee & Moray, 1992;Muir & Moray, 1996). In contrast, Keller and Rice (2009) found that when a completely reliable aid was presented with an unreliable aid, operators tended to rate both aids the same in a global, system-wide trust rating rather than treating them as different systems with different reliabilities (component-specific trust).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trust in automation is a key determinant for the adoption of automated systems and their appropriate use. Therefore, it constitutes an essential research area for the introduction of automated vehicles to road traffic. In this study, we investigated the influence of trust promoting (Trust promoted group) and trust lowering (Trust lowered group) introductory information on reported trust, reliance behavior and takeover performance. Forty participants encountered three situations in a 17-minute highway drive in a conditionally automated vehicle (SAE Level 3). Situation 1 and Situation 3 were non-critical situations where a take-over was optional. Situation 2 represented a critical situation where a take-over was necessary to avoid a collision. A non-driving-related task (NDRT) was presented between the situations to record the allocation of visual attention. Participants reporting a higher trust level spent less time looking at the road or instrument cluster and more time looking at the NDRT. The manipulation of introductory information resulted in medium differences in reported trust and influenced participants' reliance behavior. Participants of the Trust promoted group looked less at the road or instrument cluster and more at the NDRT. The odds of participants of the Trust promoted group to overrule the automated driving system in the non-critical situations were 3.65 times (Situation 1) to 5 times (Situation 3) higher. In Situation 2, the Trust promoted group's mean take-over time was extended by 1154 ms and the mean minimum time-to-collision was 933 ms shorter. Six participants from the Trust promoted group compared to no participant of the Trust lowered group collided with the obstacle. The results demonstrate that the individual trust level influences how much drivers monitor the environment while performing an NDRT. Introductory information influences this trust level, reliance on an automated driving system, and if a critical take-over situation can be successfully solved.

show abstract

Section: The Role Of Trust In Automated Drivingmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The experiment therefore gathered data on real world use of automation in contrast to much of the literature in the area which tends to use artificial simulations and/or non-expert participants (e.g. Lee & Moray, 1994;Sauer, Nickel & Wastell, 2013;Röttger, Bali, & Manzey, 2009;Endsley & Kaber, 1999;Bagheri & Jamieson, 2004;Beck, Dzindolet, & Pierce, 2007;Muir & Moray, 1996;Johnson et al, 2002;Meyer, Feinshreiber, & Parmet, 2003). Other studies which did use real world systems and expert operators have typically been more exploratory (e.g.…”

Section: Effects Of Automationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of automation: Measurement of performance, workload and behaviour in a complex control environment

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes an experiment that was undertaken to compare three levels of automation in rail signalling; a high level in which an automated agent set routes for trains using timetable information, a medium level in which trains were routed along pre-defined paths, and a low level where the operator (signaller) was responsible for the movement of all trains. These levels are described in terms of a rail automation model based on previous automation theory (Parasuraman, Sheridan, & Wickens, 2000). Performance, subjective workload, and signaller activity were measured for each level of automation running under both normal operating conditions and abnormal, or disrupted, conditions. The results indicate that perceived workload, during both normal and disrupted phases of the experiment, decreased as the level of automation increased and performance was most consistent (i.e. showed the least variation between participants) with the highest level of automation. The results give a strong case in favour of automation, particularly in terms of demonstrating the potential for automation to reduce workload, but also suggest much benefit can achieved from a mid-level of automation potentially at a lower cost and complexity. Impact StatementResearch in the area of automation, and in particular in the examination of human interaction with different levels of automation, has normally been undertaken in Balfe et al, Impact of Automation: Measurement of Performance, Workload and Behaviour in a Complex Control Environment 2 laboratory settings using simple tasks and naïve participants where the level of automation can be easily manipulated. This research was undertaken with expert participants using complex simulation of three ecologically valid levels of automation and provides empirical field validation of some of the results found in laboratory studies.

show abstract

“…This has analogies with the issues of user trust in technology in general, and data in particular. Muir & Moray (1996) have demonstrated the strong positive relationship between trust in automation and automation use stating "operators used automation they trusted and rejected automation they distrusted". This is likely to apply in the context of GI data -in this case the perceived quality of the data is likely to have an impact on the extent to which it is trusted.…”

Section: Data Quality Language Quantity and Detailmentioning

confidence: 99%

Usability of Geographic Information: Current challenges and future directions

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:The use of Geographic Information or GI, has grown rapidly in recent years. Previous research has identified the importance of usability and user centred design in enabling the proliferation and exploitation of GI. However, the design and development of usable GI is not simply a matter of applying the tried and tested usability methods that have been developed for software and web design. Dealing with data and specifically GI brings with it a number of issues that change the way usability and user centred design can be applied. This paper describes the outcomes of a workshop held in March 2010 exploring the core issues relating to GI usability. The workshop brought together an international group of twenty experts in both human factors and GI, from a wide range of academic and industrial backgrounds. These experts considered three key issues, the stakeholders in GI, key challenges applying usability to GI and the usability methods that can be successfully applied to GI. The result of this workshop was to identify some areas for future research, such as the production of meaningful metadata and the implications of blurring of the line between data producers and data consumers.

show abstract

Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation

Cited by 769 publications

References 6 publications

Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving

Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving

Impact of automation: Measurement of performance, workload and behaviour in a complex control environment

Usability of Geographic Information: Current challenges and future directions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About