Where Is the Function Allocation Boundary? The Effect of Degree of Automation on Attention Allocation and Human Performance Under Different Reliabilities.
Shuo Wang, Yu Liu, Xuan Wang, Zechen Liu, Xuqun You, Yuan Li
{"title":"Where Is the Function Allocation Boundary? The Effect of Degree of Automation on Attention Allocation and Human Performance Under Different Reliabilities.","authors":"Shuo Wang, Yu Liu, Xuan Wang, Zechen Liu, Xuqun You, Yuan Li","doi":"10.1177/00187208241311808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study investigated the effect of reliability on the function allocation (FA) boundary by examining the interaction effect of degree of automation (DOA) and reliability on routine performance, failure performance, and attention allocation.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>According to the lumberjack effect, an increase in DOA will typically improve routine performance, while failure performance may remain undeteriorated until a specific, high DOA threshold is reached. This threshold can be regarded as the FA boundary. Considering that both DOA and reliability can influence failure performance through attention allocation, it is crucial to investigate how reliability affects the FA boundary.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Participants performed three MATB tasks, one of which, the system monitoring task, was supported by four types of automation: information acquisition (IAc), information analysis (IAn), action selection (AS), and action implementation (AI). From IAc to AI, the DOA incrementally increased. Additionally, automation reliability was set to three levels, namely, 87.50%, 68.75%, and 56.25%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For routine performance, participants assisted by AS reacted more rapidly to gauge malfunctions than those supported by IAc or IAn. For failure performance, participants aided by AI corrected gauge malfunctions less frequently than other participants. Correspondingly, participants supported by AI exhibited fewer fixation counts on the system monitoring task than did others.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It appears that the FA boundary lies between AS and AI. However, there is insufficient evidence to support the effect of reliability on the FA boundary.</p><p><strong>Application: </strong>These findings can provide useful insights for improving the design of automated systems in complex working environments.</p>","PeriodicalId":56333,"journal":{"name":"Human Factors","volume":" ","pages":"187208241311808"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Factors","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208241311808","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: This study investigated the effect of reliability on the function allocation (FA) boundary by examining the interaction effect of degree of automation (DOA) and reliability on routine performance, failure performance, and attention allocation.
Background: According to the lumberjack effect, an increase in DOA will typically improve routine performance, while failure performance may remain undeteriorated until a specific, high DOA threshold is reached. This threshold can be regarded as the FA boundary. Considering that both DOA and reliability can influence failure performance through attention allocation, it is crucial to investigate how reliability affects the FA boundary.
Method: Participants performed three MATB tasks, one of which, the system monitoring task, was supported by four types of automation: information acquisition (IAc), information analysis (IAn), action selection (AS), and action implementation (AI). From IAc to AI, the DOA incrementally increased. Additionally, automation reliability was set to three levels, namely, 87.50%, 68.75%, and 56.25%.
Results: For routine performance, participants assisted by AS reacted more rapidly to gauge malfunctions than those supported by IAc or IAn. For failure performance, participants aided by AI corrected gauge malfunctions less frequently than other participants. Correspondingly, participants supported by AI exhibited fewer fixation counts on the system monitoring task than did others.
Conclusion: It appears that the FA boundary lies between AS and AI. However, there is insufficient evidence to support the effect of reliability on the FA boundary.
Application: These findings can provide useful insights for improving the design of automated systems in complex working environments.
期刊介绍：
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society publishes peer-reviewed scientific studies in human factors/ergonomics that present theoretical and practical advances concerning the relationship between people and technologies, tools, environments, and systems. Papers published in Human Factors leverage fundamental knowledge of human capabilities and limitations – and the basic understanding of cognitive, physical, behavioral, physiological, social, developmental, affective, and motivational aspects of human performance – to yield design principles; enhance training, selection, and communication; and ultimately improve human-system interfaces and sociotechnical systems that lead to safer and more effective outcomes.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
