Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 4 – uploaded by Stephen Whitlow

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
between the low and high Automation Visibility levels was marginally significant (t(22) = 1.69, p < 0.10). See Figure 3 Figure 4. Automation awareness ratings.

Figure 3 between the low and high Automation Visibility levels was marginally significant (t(22) = 1.69, p < 0.10). See Figure 3 Figure 4. Automation awareness ratings.

Related Figures (7)

In broad terms, information automation is the programming logic that dictates what, when, and how information is presented to the flightcrew. In previous work, nine characteristics, related to automation automation-human interaction, specific to information automation were identified (Dudley et al, 2014; see Table 1), The study focused on two characteristics: Information Quality and Automation Visibility.
In broad terms, information automation is the programming logic that dictates what, when, and how information is presented to the flightcrew. In previous work, nine characteristics, related to automation automation-human interaction, specific to information automation were identified (Dudley et al, 2014; see Table 1), The study focused on two characteristics: Information Quality and Automation Visibility.
Figure 1. Diversion Aid with the top three ranked options. decent. After 60 to 90 seconds, the need for a diversion was announced and the participant was asked to make a recommendation within five minutes. The participant then started the Diversion Aid, reviewed its recommended plan(s), and decided whether to accept one of the plans or to reject its recommendation(s) if he or she could devise a better plan. The participant did not need to create a different plan. A help menu was available that displayed the set of policies
Figure 1. Diversion Aid with the top three ranked options. decent. After 60 to 90 seconds, the need for a diversion was announced and the participant was asked to make a recommendation within five minutes. The participant then started the Diversion Aid, reviewed its recommended plan(s), and decided whether to accept one of the plans or to reject its recommendation(s) if he or she could devise a better plan. The participant did not need to create a different plan. A help menu was available that displayed the set of policies
In the high Information Quality condition, the correct selection was always the top option on the display. In the low Information Quality condition, the correct selection was not the top selection, because the automation was missing information that resulted in incorrect scoring of the OpMans, However, participants were given knowledge of this “missing information during the pre-flight briefing. Thus in the low Information Quality conditions, the automation’s highest ranked plan was not actually the best plan — participants were expected to recognize that a different plan was better once 29 Table 2 describes the levels of Automation Visibility (low, medium, high) and Jnformation Quality (low, high).
In the high Information Quality condition, the correct selection was always the top option on the display. In the low Information Quality condition, the correct selection was not the top selection, because the automation was missing information that resulted in incorrect scoring of the OpMans, However, participants were given knowledge of this “missing information during the pre-flight briefing. Thus in the low Information Quality conditions, the automation’s highest ranked plan was not actually the best plan — participants were expected to recognize that a different plan was better once 29 Table 2 describes the levels of Automation Visibility (low, medium, high) and Jnformation Quality (low, high).
Table 3. Dependent variables and assocaited metrics. Experimental Design and Procedure
Table 3. Dependent variables and assocaited metrics. Experimental Design and Procedure
Figure 3. Mental demand (left) and temporal demand (right). Temporal Demand: Automation Visibility was significant (F222) = 4.56, p < 0.022). The paired t-test showed that the low Automation Visibility level resulted in significantly lower temporal demand as compared to the medium level (t.22) = 2.38, p < 0.027) and was also marginally significantly lower than the high Automation Visibility condition (f2) = 1.92, p < 0.068). Figure 2 (left) shows the results of the temporal demand as a function of Automation Visibility.
Figure 3. Mental demand (left) and temporal demand (right). Temporal Demand: Automation Visibility was significant (F222) = 4.56, p < 0.022). The paired t-test showed that the low Automation Visibility level resulted in significantly lower temporal demand as compared to the medium level (t.22) = 2.38, p < 0.027) and was also marginally significantly lower than the high Automation Visibility condition (f2) = 1.92, p < 0.068). Figure 2 (left) shows the results of the temporal demand as a function of Automation Visibility.
Figure 2. Selection time as a function of Automation Visibility. Time to make a Selection. Automation Visibility was a significant factor (F(2,22) = 3.67, p < 0.042) for this measure, with the low Automation Visibility condition being significantly faster (t(22) = 2.15, p < 0.043) than the high Automation Visibility condition. Figure 1shows the time to make a selection as a function of Automation Visibility.
Figure 2. Selection time as a function of Automation Visibility. Time to make a Selection. Automation Visibility was a significant factor (F(2,22) = 3.67, p < 0.042) for this measure, with the low Automation Visibility condition being significantly faster (t(22) = 2.15, p < 0.043) than the high Automation Visibility condition. Figure 1shows the time to make a selection as a function of Automation Visibility.
Figure 5. Trust ratings as a function of Automation Visibility. Trust was significantly affected by the level of automation visibility (F(2,20) = 4.18, p < 0.030), information quality (F110) = 6.26, p < 0.031;, as well as significant interaction between the two (Fa.20) = 4.15, p < 0.031, respectively).
Figure 5. Trust ratings as a function of Automation Visibility. Trust was significantly affected by the level of automation visibility (F(2,20) = 4.18, p < 0.030), information quality (F110) = 6.26, p < 0.031;, as well as significant interaction between the two (Fa.20) = 4.15, p < 0.031, respectively).
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved