Accession Number:

ADA496817

Title:

On the Independence of Compliance and Reliance: Are Automation False Alarms Worse Than Misses?

Descriptive Note:

Technical rept.

Corporate Author:

ILLINOIS UNIV AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN SAVOY AVIATION HUMAN FACTORS DIVISION

Report Date:

2006-03-01

Pagination or Media Count:

15.0

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.

Subject Categories:

  • Biomedical Instrumentation and Bioengineering

Distribution Statement:

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE