Reliability of automation is known to influence operator reliance on automation. What is less understood is how the influence of reliability and the effects of operator fatigue might interact. The present study investigated the impact of automation reliability on accuracy and reliance and how this impact changes with level of fatigue during simulated multiple unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operation. Participants (N = 131) completed a two-hour simulated multi-UAV mission assisted by an automated decision making aid of either high or low reliability. A decrease in subjective task engagement and performance over time marked the induction of passive fatigue by the mission. Participants were more trusting in the high reliability condition than in the low reliability condition. Finally, reliance decreased with time at any reliability, but a significant interaction between reliability and time on task indicated that the decrease was of smaller magnitude when the automation was reliable.
References
1.
CalhounG. L.RuffH. A.DraperM. H.WrightE. J. (2011). Automation-level transference effects in simulated multiple unmanned aerial vehicle control. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 5(1), 55–82.
2.
ChappelleW. L.McDonaldK.KingR. E. (2010). Psychological attributes critical to the performance of MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper U.S. Air Force Sensor Operators (Final Report No. ADA525910).
3.
CummingsM. L.BrzezinskiA. S.LeeJ. D. (2007). The impact of intelligent aiding for multiple unmanned aerial vehicle schedule management.
4.
CummingsM. L.MastracchioC.ThornburgK. M.MkrtchyanA. (2013). Boredom and distraction in multiple unmanned vehicle supervisory control. Interacting with Computers, 25(1), 34–47.
5.
DesmondP. A.HancockP. A. (2001). Active and passive fatigue states. In HancockP. A.DesmondP. A. (Eds.), Stress, workload, and fatigue (pp. 455–465). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1243–1270.
7.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46(1), 50–80.
8.
LinJ.WohleberR. W.MatthewsG.ChiuC.-Y. P.CalhounG. L.RuffH. A.FunkeG. J. (2015). Video game experience and gender as predictors of performance and stress during supervisory control of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59(1), 746–750.
9.
MadsenM.GregorS. (2000). Measuring human-computer trust. In Proceedings of Eleventh Australasian Conference on Information Systems (pp. 6–8). Citeseer.
10.
MatthewsG.CampbellS. E.FalconerS.JoynerL. A.HugginsJ.GillilandK.… WarmJ. S. (2002). Fundamental dimensions of subjective state in performance settings: Task engagement, distress, and worry. Emotion, 2(4), 315–340.
11.
MatthewsG.DesmondP. A.NeubauerC.HancockP. A. (2012). An overview of operator fatigue. In MatthewsG. (Ed.), The handbook of operator fatigue (pp. 1–23). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub. Company.
12.
NeubauerC.MatthewsG.LangheimL.SaxbyD. (2012). Fatigue and voluntary utilization of automation in simulated driving. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54(5), 734–746.
13.
ParasuramanR.ManzeyD. H. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 52(3), 381–410.
14.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 39(2), 230–253.
15.
ParasuramanR.WickensC. D. (2008). Humans: Still vital after all these years of automation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(3), 511–520.
16.
RosekindM. R.GanderP. H.GregoryK. B.SmithR. M.MillerD. L.OyungR.… JohnsonJ. M. (1996). Managing fatigue in operational settings 2: An integrated approach. Behavioral Medicine, 21(4), 166–170.
17.
RuffH. A.NarayananS.DraperM. H. (2002). Human interaction with levels of automation and decision-aid fidelity in the supervisory control of multiple simulated unmanned air vehicles. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 11(4), 335–351.
18.
SauerJ.WastellD. G.RobertG.HockeyG. R. J.EarleF. (2003). Performance in a complex multiple-task environment during a laboratory-based simulation of occasional night work. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 45(4), 657–670.
19.
SaxbyD. J.MatthewsG.WarmJ. S.HitchcockE. M.NeubauerC. (2013). Active and passive fatigue in simulated driving: Discriminating styles of workload regulation and their safety impacts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19(4), 287–300.
20.
WarmJ. S.MatthewsG.FinomoreV. S. (2008). Vigilance, workload, and stress. In HancockP. A.SzalmaJ. L. (Eds.), Performance under stress (pp. 115–141). Aldershot, England ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate
