The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task

By David B. Kaber, Mica R. Endsley. 2004

835 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Biomedical Engineering, Radiological and Ultrasound Technology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/457abf758184a4e1e8e3b8d48a1d13eb3034a400

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Biomedical Engineering

In Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Humans: Still Vital After All These Years of Automation (2008, background): “, an automated aid can be provided to reduce workload when operators are detected to be in overload (Kaber & Endsley, 2004).”
Haptic shared control: smoothly shifting control authority? (2012, background): “This constitutes the concept of adaptive automation (for an overview, see: Inagaki 2003), which initially focused on system-driven adaptation (e.g., Scerbo 2001; Kaber and Endsley 2004).”
Understanding human management of automation errors (2013, background): “Kaber and Endsley (2004) reported further evidence of the dissociation between SA and performance.”
Human Performance Consequences of Stages and Levels of Automation (2014, background): “More recently, Kaber and Endsley (2004) and Wickens et al. (1998) put forth the idea that automation could also be categorized according to the stage of information processing that it accomplished.”
Human Performance Consequences of Automated Decision Aids (2012, background): “…provided evidence for the benefits of medium DOA for maintaining situation awareness and skills (e.g., Endsley & Kaber, 1999; Endsley & Kiris, 1995; Kaber & Endsley, 2004), other findings suggest that higher DOA may provide benefits in this respect (Lorenz, Di Nocera, Roettger, & Parasuraman,…”
Implementing Lumberjacks and Black Swans Into Model-Based Tools to Support Human–Automation Interaction (2017, result): “Such a finding is also consistent with the general understanding that being out of the loop degrades awareness of what automation is doing (Endsley & Kiris, 1995; Kaber & Endsley, 2004), with a progressively greater loss as automation does more work and the human does less work.”
Situation Awareness Misconceptions and Misunderstandings (2015, background): “…that leave operators with poor SA, slow to detect and to diagnose automation problems and failures, have been highly documented as a critical performance problem in many systems (Endsley & Kaber, 1996; Kaber & Endsley, 1997b, 2004; Parasuraman & Riley, 1997; Wiener & Curry, 1980; Young, 1969).”
From Here to Autonomy (2017, background): “…automation in a metaanalysis of studies (Wickens & Dixon, 2007), thus shifting operator attention away from the automation and decreasing SA of the functions being automated (Carsten, Lai, Barnard, Jamson, & Merat, 2012; Kaber & Endsley, 2004; Ma, SheikNainar, & Kaber, 2005; Sethumadhavan, 2009).”
Designing for Flexible Interaction Between Humans and Automation: Delegation Interfaces for Supervisory Control (2007, background): “Studies have shown that adaptive systems can regulate operator workload and enhance performance while preserving the beneﬁts of automation (Hilburn, Jorna, Byrne, & Para-suraman, 1997; Kaber & Endsley, 2004; Moray et al., 2000; Prinzel et al., 2003).”
Towards a Theory of Longitudinal Trust Calibration in Human–Robot Teams (2019, background): “These systems are a special form of adaptive automation [10,42,63,78,129] that can measure the trust state of a human and then adapt their behavior accordingly to provide a positive impact on team performance.”
Human factors of transitions in automated driving: A general framework and literature survey (2016, background): “Previous research has demonstrated that adaptively allocating the control task between humans and automation can be beneficial for effective human-machine interaction (Hancock et al., 2013; Kaber & Endsley, 2004; Parasuraman et al., 1996).”
The Need for Command and Control Instant Message Adaptive Interfaces: Lessons Learned from Tactical Tomahawk Human-in-the-Loop Simulations (2004, background): “... computers to improve overall system performance while mitigating the negative aspects of both (see Scerbo, 1996 and Kaber et al., 2001.) The use of flexible and adaptive automation in supervisory control has been shown to promote improved automation monitoring (Parasuraman et al., 1996) and supe”
Supporting wilderness search and rescue using a camera‐equipped mini UAV (2008, neutral): “The interactions represented by these two extremes typify the extreme points of several adjustable autonomy scales Sheridan & Verplank, 1978; Kaber & Endsley, 2004; Parasuraman, Sheridan & Wickens 2000 .”