Treffer: The Impact of Lower Degree Automation Reliability on Higher Degree Automation Failure Detection in Simulated Air Traffic Control.

Title:
The Impact of Lower Degree Automation Reliability on Higher Degree Automation Failure Detection in Simulated Air Traffic Control.
Authors:
Bowden VK; The University of Western Australia, Australia., Gegoff I; The University of Western Australia, Australia., Kilpatrick PJ; The University of Western Australia, Australia., Loft S; The University of Western Australia, Australia.
Source:
Human factors [Hum Factors] 2025 Nov; Vol. 67 (11), pp. 1121-1135. Date of Electronic Publication: 2025 Apr 21.
Publication Type:
Journal Article
Language:
English
Journal Info:
Publisher: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 0374660 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1547-8181 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 00187208 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Hum Factors Subsets: MEDLINE
Imprint Name(s):
Publication: Santa Monica, Ca : Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Original Publication: New York, N.Y. : Pergamon Press, 1958-4
MeSH Terms:
Automation* , Aviation*/instrumentation , Man-Machine Systems* , Aircraft* , Task Performance and Analysis*, Humans ; Adult ; Male ; Female ; Young Adult
Contributed Indexing:
Keywords: air traffic control; automation failure detection; degree of automation; human-automation teaming
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20250421 Date Completed: 20251021 Latest Revision: 20251021
Update Code:
20251021
PubMed Central ID:
PMC12515260
DOI:
10.1177/00187208251335536
PMID:
40257007
Database:
MEDLINE

Weitere Informationen

ObjectiveTo determine how lower degree of automation (DOA) reliability impacts human response to a single higher-DOA failure in simulated air traffic control conflict detection.BackgroundHigher-DOA systems apply higher levels of automation to later stages of human information processing. Higher-DOA typically results in better routine performance, and lower-DOA with better automation failure response. If both are provided and lower-DOA is reliable, it could support higher DOA failure detection.MethodParticipants ( N = 192) received a combination of lower-DOA and/or higher-DOA. Lower-DOA highlighted aircraft conflicts and near-misses, leaving participants to manually resolve conflicts. Higher-DOA resolved conflicts. Automation failed once. Participants were provided one of four types of automation: lower-DOA, where lower-DOA failed (L <subscript>F</subscript> ); higher-DOA, where higher-DOA failed (H <subscript>F</subscript> ); both lower- and higher-DOA, where only higher-DOA failed (LH <subscript>F</subscript> ); or both lower- and higher-DOA, where both failed (L <subscript>F</subscript> H <subscript>F</subscript> ).ResultsWhen only the higher-DOA component of combined lower- and higher-DOA failed (LH <subscript>F</subscript> ), participants detected the automation failure 23.6s faster and more accurately (miss rate = -.08) compared to higher-DOA only (H <subscript>F</subscript> ). However, more participants missed the automation failure when lower-DOA failed (L <subscript>F</subscript> = +.42; L <subscript>F</subscript> H <subscript>F</subscript> = +.15), compared to the H <subscript>F</subscript> condition.ConclusionsReliable lower-DOA can support higher DOA failure detection when both are presented. However, poorer automation failure detection with lower-DOA failure suggests participants over-relied on aircraft highlighting to direct attention to potential conflicts.ApplicationsProviding both lower- and higher-DOA together could be beneficial when higher-DOA fails but lower-DOA remains reliable, but conversely, detrimental if lower-DOA also fails.

Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.