Ironic efficiency in automation-aided signal detection.
Decision makers often make poor use of the information provided by an automated signal detection aid; recent studies have found that participants assisted by an automated aid fell well short of best-possible sensitivity levels. The present study tested the generalisability of this finding over varyi...
| Publicado en: | Ergonomics Vol. 64; no. 1; pp. 103 - 113 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | research tables/charts Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Jan2021
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=147858502&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 147858502 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 00140139 ERO jtl: Ergonomics issn: 00140139 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Jan2021 vid: 64 iid: 1 pid: 377 pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania artinfo: ui: 147858502 145585932 147858502 147858502 10.1080/00140139.2020.1809716 147858502 ppf: 103 ppct: 10 formats: tig: atl: Ironic efficiency in automation-aided signal detection. aug: au: Bartlett, Megan L. McCarley, Jason S. affil: College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia sug: subj: Task Performance and Analysis Automation Signal Processing, Computer Assisted Sensitivity and Specificity Decision Support Techniques Human Cues Judgment Descriptive Statistics ab: Decision makers often make poor use of the information provided by an automated signal detection aid; recent studies have found that participants assisted by an automated aid fell well short of best-possible sensitivity levels. The present study tested the generalisability of this finding over varying levels of aid reliability. Participants performed a binary signal detection task either unaided or with assistance from a decision aid that was 60%, 85%, or 96%-reliable. Assistance from a highly reliable aid (85% or 96%) improved discrimination performance, while assistance from a low-reliability aid (60%) did not. Because their ideal strategy is to place less weight on less reliable cues, however, the decision makers' tendency to disuse the aid became more appropriate as the aid's reliability declined. Automation-aided efficiency was thus near to optimal when the aid was close to chance but became highly inefficient, ironically, as the aid's reliability increased. Practitioner Summary: Investigating operators' automation-aided information integration strategies allows human factors practitioners to predict the level of performance the operator will attain. Ironically, in an aided signal detection task, performance when assisted by a highly reliable aid is far less efficient than that obtained when assisted by a far less reliable aid. Abbreviations: OW: optimal weighting; UW: uniform weighting; CC: contingent criterion; BD: best decides; CF: coin flip; PM: probability matching; HDI: highest density interval; MCMC: markov chain monte carlo; HR: hit rate; FAR: false alarm rate pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: research tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|