The present study explored relationships among operators’ workload, subjective trust, and visual scanning patterns during their interaction with imperfect automation in a low-fidelity flight simulation task. Participants performed both a manual tracking task and a secondary system monitoring task (automated; FA- vs. miss-prone) under high and low load conditions manipulated by central task demand. The high load condition produced, 1) less frequent saccades toward system monitoring, 2) greater subjective workload, and 3) lower levels of subjective trust, compared to the low load condition. A mediation analysis revealed that subjective workload mediated the effect of load on visual scanning patterns whereas subjective trust did not. The results imply that, when the central task demands more attention, operators strategically reduce sampling rates of information from the system monitoring task assisted by imperfect automation depending on their subjective workload but not on subjective trust.
References
1.
BainbridgeL. (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19, 775-779. Chicago.
2.
BillingsC. E. (1997). Aviation automation: The search for a human centered approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
BlissJ. P.DunnM. C. (2000). Behavioural implications of alarm mistrust as a function of task workload, Ergonomics, 43, 1283-1300.
4.
BustamanteE. A. (2009). A reexamination of the mediating effect of trust among alarm systems’ characteristics and human compliance and reliance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting (pp. 249-253). Las Vegas, NV: The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
5.
ChanceyE. T.BlissJ. P.ProapsA. B.MadhavanP. (2015). The role of trust as a mediator between system characteristics and response behaviors. Human Factors, 57, 947-958.
6.
ChanceyE. T.BlissJ. P.YamaniY.HandleyH. (under review). Trust and the compliance-reliance paradigm: The effect of risk, error bias, and reliability on trust and dependence behaviors.
7.
ChanceyE.T.ProapsA.BlissJ.P. (2013). The role of trust as a mediator between signaling system reliability and response behaviors. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 57th Annual Meeting (pp. 285-289). San Diego, CA.
8.
DixonS. R.WickensC. D.McCarleyJ. S. (2007). On the independence of compliance and reliance: Are automation false alarms worse than misses?Human Factors, 49, 564-572.
9.
DixonS. R.WickensC. D. (2006). Automation reliability in unmanned aerial vehicle control: A reliance- compliance model of automation dependence in high workload. Human Factors, 48, 474-486.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP. A.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Human mental workload. Oxford, UK: North-Holland.
12.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression- Based Approach. Guilford Publications, NY: New York.
13.
HayesA. F.CaiL. (2007). Using heteroskedasticity- consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. Behavioral Research Methods. 39, 709-722.
14.
HorreyW. J.LeschM. F.Mitsopoulos-RubensE.LeeJ. D. (2015). Calibration of skill and judgment in driving: Development of a conceptual framework and the implications for road safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 76, 25-33.
15.
JianJ.BisantzA. M.DruryC. G. (2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4, 53-71.
16.
KahnemanD. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
17.
LeeJ.MorayN. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243-1270.
18.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46 (1), 50-80.
19.
LiH.WickensC. D.SarterN.SebokA. (2014). Stages and levels of automation in support of space teleoperations. Human Factors, 56, 1050-1061.
20.
MorayN.InagakiT.ItohM. (2000). Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 44-58.
21.
ParasuramanR.ManzeyD. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors, 52, 381-410.
22.
ParasuramanR.MolloyR.SinghI. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced ‘complacency’. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 1-23.
23.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230-253.
24.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT.WickensC. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans, 30, 286-297.
25.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
26.
Santiago-EspadaY.MyerR. R.LatorellaK. A.ComstockJ. R. (2011). The Multi-Attribute Task Battery II (MATB-II) Software for Human Performance and Workload Research: A User’s Guide (NASA/TM-2011-217164). Hampton, VA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center.
27.
SchaeferK. E.ChenM. Y. C.SzalmaJ. L.HancockP. A. (2016). A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation: Implications for understanding autonomy in future systems. Human Factors, 58, 377-400.
28.
WickensC. D.DixonS. R. (2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8 (3), 201-212.
WiczorekR.ManzeyD. (2010). Is operators’ compliance with alarm systems a product of rational consideration?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting, (pp. 1722-1726). San Francisco, CA: The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
31.
YamaniY.HorreyW. (under review). When resources are freed: A framework for human-automation interaction grounded in information processing, attentional resources, and allocation policy.
