Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Automation bias: decision making and performance in high-tech cockpits.
Int J Aviat Psychol. 1997; 8(1):47-63.IJ

Abstract

Automated aids and decision support tools are rapidly becoming indispensable tools in high-technology cockpits and are assuming increasing control of"cognitive" flight tasks, such as calculating fuel-efficient routes, navigating, or detecting and diagnosing system malfunctions and abnormalities. This study was designed to investigate automation bias, a recently documented factor in the use of automated aids and decision support systems. The term refers to omission and commission errors resulting from the use of automated cues as a heuristic replacement for vigilant information seeking and processing. Glass-cockpit pilots flew flight scenarios involving automation events or opportunities for automation-related omission and commission errors. Although experimentally manipulated accountability demands did not significantly impact performance, post hoc analyses revealed that those pilots who reported an internalized perception of "accountability" for their performance and strategies of interaction with the automation were significantly more likely to double-check automated functioning against other cues and less likely to commit errors than those who did not share this perception. Pilots were also lilkely to erroneously "remember" the presence of expected cues when describing their decision-making processes.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Mosier KL
San Jose State University and NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA.
Skitka LJ
No affiliation info available
Heers S
No affiliation info available
Burdick M
No affiliation info available

MeSH

Accidents, AviationAerospace MedicineAircraftAutomationAviationCognitionDecision MakingDecision Making, Computer-AssistedErgonomicsExpert SystemsHumansMemoryMiddle AgedTask Performance and AnalysisWorkload

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Language

eng

PubMed ID

11540946

Citation

Mosier, K L., et al. "Automation Bias: Decision Making and Performance in High-tech Cockpits." The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, vol. 8, no. 1, 1997, pp. 47-63.
Mosier KL, Skitka LJ, Heers S, et al. Automation bias: decision making and performance in high-tech cockpits. Int J Aviat Psychol. 1997;8(1):47-63.
Mosier, K. L., Skitka, L. J., Heers, S., & Burdick, M. (1997). Automation bias: decision making and performance in high-tech cockpits. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(1), 47-63.
Mosier KL, et al. Automation Bias: Decision Making and Performance in High-tech Cockpits. Int J Aviat Psychol. 1997;8(1):47-63. PubMed PMID: 11540946.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Automation bias: decision making and performance in high-tech cockpits. AU - Mosier,K L, AU - Skitka,L J, AU - Heers,S, AU - Burdick,M, PY - 1997/1/1/pubmed PY - 2001/9/11/medline PY - 1997/1/1/entrez SP - 47 EP - 63 JF - The International journal of aviation psychology JO - Int J Aviat Psychol VL - 8 IS - 1 N2 - Automated aids and decision support tools are rapidly becoming indispensable tools in high-technology cockpits and are assuming increasing control of"cognitive" flight tasks, such as calculating fuel-efficient routes, navigating, or detecting and diagnosing system malfunctions and abnormalities. This study was designed to investigate automation bias, a recently documented factor in the use of automated aids and decision support systems. The term refers to omission and commission errors resulting from the use of automated cues as a heuristic replacement for vigilant information seeking and processing. Glass-cockpit pilots flew flight scenarios involving automation events or opportunities for automation-related omission and commission errors. Although experimentally manipulated accountability demands did not significantly impact performance, post hoc analyses revealed that those pilots who reported an internalized perception of "accountability" for their performance and strategies of interaction with the automation were significantly more likely to double-check automated functioning against other cues and less likely to commit errors than those who did not share this perception. Pilots were also lilkely to erroneously "remember" the presence of expected cues when describing their decision-making processes. SN - 1050-8414 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/11540946/Automation_bias:_decision_making_and_performance_in_high_tech_cockpits_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -