title: Understanding reliance on automation: effects of error type, error distribution, age and experience.
abstract: An obstacle detection task supported by "imperfect" automation was used with the goal of understanding the effects of automation error types and age on automation reliance. Sixty younger and sixty older adults interacted with a multi-task simulation of an agricultural vehicle (i.e. a virtual harvesting combine). The simulator included an obstacle detection task and a fully manual tracking task. A micro-level analysis provided insight into the way reliance patterns change over time. The results indicated that there are distinct patterns of reliance that develop as a function of error type. A prevalence of automation false alarms led participants to under-rely on the automation during alarm states while over relying on it during non-alarms states. Conversely, a prevalence of automation misses led participants to over-rely on automated alarms and under-rely on the automation during non-alarm states. Older adults adjusted their behavior according to the characteristics of the automation similarly to younger adults, although it took them longer to do so. The results of this study suggest the relationship between automation reliability and reliance depends on the prevalence of specific errors and on the state of the system. Understanding the effects of automation detection criterion settings on human-automation interaction can help designers of automated systems make predictions about human behavior and system performance as a function of the characteristics of the automation.
authors: Medtronic, 976 Hardwood Avenue, Shoreview, MN 55126, USA.
authors: Julian
authors: J
authors: Sanchez
authors: Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
authors: Wendy A
authors: WA
authors: Rogers
authors: Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
authors: Arthur D
authors: AD
authors: Fisk
authors: US Military Academy, West Point, NY, USA.
authors: Ericka
authors: E
authors: Rovira
references: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 1997 Jan;52B(1):P40-52
references: 9008674
references: Hum Factors. 1996 Dec;38(4):665-79
references: 11536753
references: J Exp Psychol Appl. 2000 Mar;6(1):44-58
references: 10937311
references: Hum Factors. 2007 Feb;49(1):76-87
references: 17315845
references: Hum Factors. 2002 Summer;44(2):171-88
references: 12452266
references: Hum Factors. 2009 Aug;51(4):446-62
references: 19899356
references: Hum Factors. 1999 Mar;41(1):26-34
references: 10354804
references: Hum Factors. 2006 Fall;48(3):474-86
references: 17063963
references: Ergonomics. 1992 Oct;35(10):1243-70
references: 1516577
references: Hum Factors. 2004 Summer;46(2):357-66
references: 15359683
references: Hum Factors. 2010 Jun;52(3):411-25
references: 21077563
references: Hum Factors. 2004 Spring;46(1):50-80
references: 15151155
references: Ergonomics. 1995 Nov;38(11):2300-12
references: 7498189
references: Ergonomics. 2007 Aug;50(8):1264-86
references: 17558669