Paradigm Development for Identifying and Validating Indicators of Trust in Automation in the Operational Environment of Human Automation Integration

详细信息    查看全文

• 关键词：Trust in automation ; Operational paradigm ; Driving automation ; Human automation integrated systems
• 刊名：Lecture Notes in Computer Science
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：9744
• 期：1
• 页码：157-167
• 全文大小：559 KB
• 参考文献：1.Muir, B.M.: Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics 37, 1905–1922 (1994)CrossRef
  2.Muir, B.M.: Operators’ trust in and percentage of time spent using the automatic controllers in a supervisory process control task. Doctoral, University of Tornonto (1989)
  3.Lee, J., Moray, N.: Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics 35, 1243–1270 (1992)CrossRef
  4.Prinzel, L.J., Freeman, F.G., Scerbo, M.W., Mikulka, P.J., Pope, A.T.: A closed-loop system for examining psychophysiological measures for adaptive task allocation. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 10, 393–410 (2000)CrossRef
  5.Scerbo, M.: Adaptive automation. In: Neuroergonomics: The Brain at Work, pp. 239–252 (2006)
  6.Borum, R.: The science of interpersonal trust (2010). Corritore, L., Kracher, B., Wiedenbeck, S.: On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 58, 737–758 (2003)
  7.Lee, J.D., Moray, N.: Trust, self-confidence, and operators’ adaptation automation. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 40, 153–184 (1994)CrossRef
  8.Lee, J.D., See, K.A.: Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 46, 50–80 (2004)CrossRef
  9.Muir, B.M., Moray, N.: Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics 39, 31 (1996)CrossRef
  10.Merritt, S.M., Ilgen, D.R.: Not all trust is created equal: dispositional and history-based trust in human-automation interactions. Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 50, 194–210 (2008)CrossRef
  11.Wickens, C.D., Dixon, S.R.: The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: a synthesis of the literature. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 8, 201–212 (2007)CrossRef
  12.Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B., Wickens, C.D.: A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 30, 10 (2000)CrossRef
  13.Dzindolet, M.T., Pierce, L.G., Beck, H.P., Dawe, L.A.: Misuse and disuse of automated aids. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, p. 339 (1999)
  14.Wickens, C.D.: Imperfect and unreliable automation and its implications for attention allocation, information access and situation awareness (2000)
  15.Cummings, M.L., Mastracchio, C., Thornburg, K.M., Mkrtchyan, A.: Boredom and distraction in multiple unmanned vehicle supervisory control. Interact. Comput. 25, 34–47 (2013)
  16.Basten, U., Biele, G., Heekeren, H.R., Fiebach, C.J.: How the brain integrates costs and benefits during decision making. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 21767–21772 (2010)CrossRef
  17.Davis, C.E., Hauf, J.D., Wu, D.Q., Everhart, D.E.: Brain function with complex decision making using electroencephalography. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 79, 175–183 (2011)CrossRef
  18.Zhou, J., Sun, J., Chen, F., Wang, Y., Taib, R., Khawaji, A., et al.: Measurable decision making with GSR and pupillary analysis for intelligent user interface. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. (ToCHI) 21, 33 (2015)
  19.Glaholt, M.G., Reingold, E.M.: Eye movement monitoring as a process tracing methodology in decision making research. J. Neurosci. Psychol. Econ. 4, 125 (2011)CrossRef
  20.Gidlöf, K. et al.: Using eye tracking to trace a cognitive process: Gaze behaviour during decision making in a natural environment. J. Eye Mov. Res. 6(1), 1–14 (2013)
  
• 作者单位：Kim Drnec (15)
  Jason S. Metcalfe (15)
  
  15. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen, MD, USA
  
• 丛书名：Foundations of Augmented Cognition: Neuroergonomics and Operational Neuroscience
• ISBN：978-3-319-39952-2
• 刊物类别：Computer Science
• 刊物主题：Artificial Intelligence and Robotics
  Computer Communication Networks
  Software Engineering
  Data Encryption
  Database Management
  Computation by Abstract Devices
  Algorithm Analysis and Problem Complexity
  
• 出版者：Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
• ISSN：1611-3349
• 卷排序：9744

文摘

Calibrated trust in an automation is a key factor supporting full integration of the human user into human automation integrated systems. True integration is a requirement if system performance is to meet expectations. Trust in automation (TiA) has been studied using surveys, but thus far no valid, objective indicators of TiA exist. Further, these studies have been conducted in tightly controlled laboratory environments and therefore do not necessarily translate into real world applications that might improve joint system performance. Through a literature review, constraints on an operational paradigm aimed at developing indicators of TiA were established. Our goal in this paper was to develop an operational paradigm designed to develop valid TiA indicators using methods from human factors and cognitive neuroscience. The operational environment chosen was driving automation because most adults are familiar with the task and its consequent structure and therefore required little training. Initial behavioral and survey data confirm that the design constraints were met. We therefore believe that our paradigm provides a valid means of performing operational experiments aimed at further understanding TiA and its psychophysiological underpinnings.