Abstract: a Objective: Participants performed a tracking task and system monitoring task while aided by diagnostic automation. The goal of the study was to examine operator compliance and reliance as affected by automation failures, and to clarify claims regarding independence of these two constructs. b Background: Background data revealed a trend towards non-independence of the compliance-reliance constructs. c Method: Thirty-two undergraduate students performed the simulation that presented the visual display and collected dependent measures. d Results: False alarm prone automation hurt overall performance more than miss-prone automation. False alarm prone automation also clearly affected both operator compliance and reliance, while miss-prone automation only appeared to affect operator reliance. e Conclusion: Compliance and reliance do not appear to be entirely independent of each other. f Application: False alarms appear to be more damaging to overall performance than misses, and designers must take the compliance-reliance constructs into affect.
| Limitations: |
 APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE |
| Description: |
Technical rept. |
| Pages: |
15 |
| Report Date: |
Mar-2006 |
| Contract Number: |
MAD6021-000-01 MAD602100001 |
| Report Number: |
A718694 |
|
|
|
|
Keywords relating to this report:
