Natalie Griffiths, Vanessa K Bowden, Serena Wee, Shayne Loft
{"title":"Predicting Return-to-Manual Performance in Lower- and Higher-Degree Automation.","authors":"Natalie Griffiths, Vanessa K Bowden, Serena Wee, Shayne Loft","doi":"10.1177/00187208251323101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine operator state variables (workload, fatigue, trust in automation, task engagement) that potentially predict return-to-manual (RTM) performance after automation fails to complete a task action.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Limited research has examined the extent to which within-person variability in operator states predicts RTM performance, a prerequisite to adapting work systems based on expected performance degradation/operator strain. We examine whether operator states differentially predict RTM performance as a function of degree of automation (DOA).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Participants completed a simulated air traffic control task. Conflict detection was assisted by either a higher- or lower-DOA. When automation failed to resolve a conflict, participants needed to prevent that conflict (i.e., RTM). Participants' self-reported workload, fatigue, trust in automation, and task engagement were periodically measured.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants using lower DOA were faster to resolve conflicts (RTM RT) missed by automation than those using higher DOA. DOA did not moderate the relationship between operator states and RTM performance. Collapsed across DOA, increased workload (relative to participants' own average) and increased fatigue (relative to sample average, or relative to own average) led to the resolution of fewer conflicts missed by automation (poorer RTM accuracy). Participants with higher trust (relative to own average) had higher RTM accuracy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Variation in operator state measures of workload, fatigue, and trust can predict RTM performance. However, given some identified inconsistency in which states are predictive across studies, further research is needed.</p><p><strong>Applications: </strong>Adaptive work systems could be designed to respond to vulnerable operator states to minimise RTM performance decrements.</p>","PeriodicalId":56333,"journal":{"name":"Human Factors","volume":" ","pages":"187208251323101"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","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/10.1177/00187208251323101","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: To examine operator state variables (workload, fatigue, trust in automation, task engagement) that potentially predict return-to-manual (RTM) performance after automation fails to complete a task action.
Background: Limited research has examined the extent to which within-person variability in operator states predicts RTM performance, a prerequisite to adapting work systems based on expected performance degradation/operator strain. We examine whether operator states differentially predict RTM performance as a function of degree of automation (DOA).
Method: Participants completed a simulated air traffic control task. Conflict detection was assisted by either a higher- or lower-DOA. When automation failed to resolve a conflict, participants needed to prevent that conflict (i.e., RTM). Participants' self-reported workload, fatigue, trust in automation, and task engagement were periodically measured.
Results: Participants using lower DOA were faster to resolve conflicts (RTM RT) missed by automation than those using higher DOA. DOA did not moderate the relationship between operator states and RTM performance. Collapsed across DOA, increased workload (relative to participants' own average) and increased fatigue (relative to sample average, or relative to own average) led to the resolution of fewer conflicts missed by automation (poorer RTM accuracy). Participants with higher trust (relative to own average) had higher RTM accuracy.
Conclusions: Variation in operator state measures of workload, fatigue, and trust can predict RTM performance. However, given some identified inconsistency in which states are predictive across studies, further research is needed.
Applications: Adaptive work systems could be designed to respond to vulnerable operator states to minimise RTM performance decrements.
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
