No tendency for human operators to agree with automation whose response bias matches their own Online publication date: Tue, 05-Jun-2018
by Megan L. Bartlett; Jason S. McCarley
International Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics (IJHFE), Vol. 5, No. 2, 2018
Abstract: Evidence suggests that false alarm-prone decision aids can engender stronger disuse than miss-prone aids, even when automation false alarms and misses are matched in perceptual characteristics. The present experiment sought to replicate this effect, and examine whether it reflects a tendency for operators to agree with automation whose response bias matches their own. Participants performed a simulated baggage screening task, alone or with assistance from an automated decision aid prone either to misses or false alarms. A point system encouraged participants themselves to adopt either a conservative, liberal, or neutral response bias. Target-present responses were faster from participants assisted by the miss-prone aid than from participants assisted by the false alarm-prone aid, regardless of the human operators' response bias. Neither response times nor accuracy rates, however, showed evidence of a generalised asymmetry in the effects of automation false alarms and misses.
Online publication date: Tue, 05-Jun-2018
If you are not a subscriber and you just want to read the full contents of this article, buy online access here.Complimentary Subscribers, Editors or Members of the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics (IJHFE):
Login with your Inderscience username and password:
Want to subscribe?
A subscription gives you complete access to all articles in the current issue, as well as to all articles in the previous three years (where applicable). See our Orders page to subscribe.
If you still need assistance, please email firstname.lastname@example.org