Transparency improves the accuracy of automation use, but automation confidence information does not.

Abstract

Increased automation transparency can improve the accuracy of automation use but can lead to increased bias towards agreeing with advice. Information about the automation's confidence in its advice may also increase the predictability of automation errors. We examined the effects of providing automation transparency, automation confidence information, and their potential interacting effect on the accuracy of automation use and other outcomes. An uninhabited vehicle (UV) management task was completed where participants selected the optimal UV to complete missions. Low or high automation transparency was provided, and participants agreed/disagreed with automated advice on each mission. We manipulated between participants whether automated advice was accompanied by confidence information. This information indicated on each trial whether automation was "somewhat" or "highly" confident in its advice. Higher transparency improved the accuracy of automation use, led to faster decisions, lower perceived workload, and increased trust and perceived usability. Providing participant automation confidence information, as compared with not, did not have an overall impact on any outcome variable and did not interact with transparency. Despite no benefit, participants who were provided confidence information did use it. For trials where lower compared to higher confidence information was presented, hit rates decreased, correct rejection rates increased, decision times slowed, and perceived workload increased, all suggestive of decreased reliance on automated advice. Such trial-by-trial shifts in automation use bias and other outcomes were not moderated by transparency. These findings can potentially inform the design of automated decision-support systems that are more understandable by humans in order to optimise human-automation interaction.