| Popis: |
Objective Examine (1) the extent to which humans can accurately estimate automation reliability and calibrate to changes in reliability, and how this is impacted by the recent accuracy of automation; and (2) factors that impact the acceptance of automated advice, including true automation reliability, reliability perception, and the difference between an operator’s perception of automation reliability and perception of their own reliability. Background Existing evidence suggests humans can adapt to changes in automation reliability but generally underestimate reliability. Cognitive science indicates that humans heavily weight evidence from more recent experiences. Method Participants monitored the behavior of maritime vessels (contacts) in order to classify them, and then received advice from automation regarding classification. Participants were assigned to either an initially high (90%) or low (60%) automation reliability condition. After some time, reliability switched to 75% in both conditions. Results Participants initially underestimated automation reliability. After the change in true reliability, estimates in both conditions moved towards the common true reliability, but did not reach it. There were recency effects, with lower future reliability estimates immediately following incorrect automation advice. With lower initial reliability, automation acceptance rates tracked true reliability more closely than perceived reliability. A positive difference between participant assessments of the reliability of automation and their own reliability predicted greater automation acceptance. Conclusion Humans underestimate the reliability of automation, and we have demonstrated several critical factors that impact the perception of automation reliability and automation use. Application The findings have potential implications for training and adaptive human-automation teaming. |
