Abstract
Automated decision aids typically improve decision-making, but incorrect advice risks automation misuse or disuse. We examined the novel question of whether increased automation transparency improves the accuracy of automation use under conditions with/without concurrent (non-automated assisted) task demands. Participants completed an uninhabited vehicle (UV) management task whereby they assigned the best UV to complete missions. Automation advised the best UV but was not always correct. Concurrent non-automated task demands decreased the accuracy of automation use, and increased decision time and perceived workload. With no concurrent task demands, increased transparency which provided more information on how the automation made decisions, improved the accuracy of automation use. With concurrent task demands, increased transparency led to higher trust ratings, faster decisions, and a bias towards agreeing with automation. These outcomes indicate increased reliance on highly transparent automation under conditions with concurrent task demands and have potential implications for human-automation teaming design.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
