Trust in Automation Measures for Aeromedical Settings.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 BIOPHYSICS
Bethany Ranes, Jordayne Wilkins, Emily Kenser, Marissa Caid-Loos
{"title":"Trust in Automation Measures for Aeromedical Settings.","authors":"Bethany Ranes, Jordayne Wilkins, Emily Kenser, Marissa Caid-Loos","doi":"10.3357/AMHP.6465.2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>As military environments integrate more complex technological systems, operators increasingly require more assistance from automation. When used properly, automation can significantly enhance performance; however, proper use is predicated on the operator's trust in the automation (TIA). TIA, like trust among people, is influenced by biological, psychosocial, and behavioral aspects. While options for measuring TIA have rapidly expanded in the past decade, there has been little consideration for how well these measures perform in operational environments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 10-yr literature review was conducted to identify TIA measures and rate their appropriateness for operational aeromedical environments. Articles from Google Scholar, EBSCO, and the Defense Technical Information Center databases were included, focusing on user-reported, physiological, and behavioral measures. Study quality was rated by aeromedical research scientists, while aeromedical appropriateness was evaluated by rated military pilots. Measures were categorized as High Recommendation, Cautious Recommendation, or Not Recommended based on these evaluations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the measures reviewed, 28 were recommended for operational use, 23 received cautious recommendations, and 6 were not recommended. The recommended measures demonstrated high research quality and suitability for aeromedical environments. The cautious recommendations highlighted measures with specific limitations that need to be considered in operational settings, while the not recommended measures lacked sufficient evidence for reliable use in these contexts.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Several high-quality TIA measures appear suitable for operational aeromedical settings. While these recommendations offer a starting point for testing TIA in aeromedical settings, further research is required to test how well these measures perform in an operational environment. Ranes B, Wilkins J, Kenser E, Caid-Loos M. Trust in automation measures for aeromedical settings. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2024; 95(11):851-861.</p>","PeriodicalId":7463,"journal":{"name":"Aerospace medicine and human performance","volume":"95 11","pages":"851-861"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aerospace medicine and human performance","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3357/AMHP.6465.2024","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: As military environments integrate more complex technological systems, operators increasingly require more assistance from automation. When used properly, automation can significantly enhance performance; however, proper use is predicated on the operator's trust in the automation (TIA). TIA, like trust among people, is influenced by biological, psychosocial, and behavioral aspects. While options for measuring TIA have rapidly expanded in the past decade, there has been little consideration for how well these measures perform in operational environments.

Methods: A 10-yr literature review was conducted to identify TIA measures and rate their appropriateness for operational aeromedical environments. Articles from Google Scholar, EBSCO, and the Defense Technical Information Center databases were included, focusing on user-reported, physiological, and behavioral measures. Study quality was rated by aeromedical research scientists, while aeromedical appropriateness was evaluated by rated military pilots. Measures were categorized as High Recommendation, Cautious Recommendation, or Not Recommended based on these evaluations.

Results: Of the measures reviewed, 28 were recommended for operational use, 23 received cautious recommendations, and 6 were not recommended. The recommended measures demonstrated high research quality and suitability for aeromedical environments. The cautious recommendations highlighted measures with specific limitations that need to be considered in operational settings, while the not recommended measures lacked sufficient evidence for reliable use in these contexts.

Discussion: Several high-quality TIA measures appear suitable for operational aeromedical settings. While these recommendations offer a starting point for testing TIA in aeromedical settings, further research is required to test how well these measures perform in an operational environment. Ranes B, Wilkins J, Kenser E, Caid-Loos M. Trust in automation measures for aeromedical settings. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2024; 95(11):851-861.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Aerospace medicine and human performance
Aerospace medicine and human performance PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
22.20%
发文量
272
期刊介绍: The peer-reviewed monthly journal, Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance (AMHP), formerly Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, provides contact with physicians, life scientists, bioengineers, and medical specialists working in both basic medical research and in its clinical applications. It is the most used and cited journal in its field. It is distributed to more than 80 nations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信