Abstract
Providing human operators with automated decision aids does not always improve performance. In this study, 24 students viewed terrain slides, half of which included a camouflaged soldier. After viewing each slide, participants could view the decision reached by a human or automated aid, or continue without the help of an aid. Some of the participants were led to believe their aids were experts; others were not. Significantly more participants showed a preference to view human rather than automated aid decisions. However, participants were as likely to misuse an automated aid as they were a human aid. These biases existed regardless of the perceived expertise of the aids. In addition, results of a linguistic analysis of open-ended descriptions of automated and human aids suggest human operators view automated and human aids differently and have implications for training and system development.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callMore From: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Disclaimer: 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.
