Abstract
The main objective of the current contribution was to investigate human–machine cooperation over time. Participants were asked to choose repeatedly between four automation modes ranging from manual control to supervisory control. Three experiments were undertaken to assess the influence of previous exposure to automation and duration of automation use on automation mode selection and associated subjective assessments. In Experiment 1, automation mode selection was investigated for a short period of time and without previous exposure to automation. Short- and longer-term automation selections were investigated after brief exposure to all automation modes (Experiment 2) or more extensive exposure to a particular mode (Experiment 3). Results indicated that automation mode selection and subjective assessments are influenced by both previous automation exposure and duration of use. Automation mode selection is not primarily based on perceived performances, subjective workload or on trust and acceptance of the automation modes. In practice, the reported data support the idea that short-term studies are not necessarily well-suited to investigating human–machine cooperation issues.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Data availability
The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Avril E, Valéry B, Navarro J, Wioland L, Cegarra J (2021) Effect of imperfect information and action automation on attentional allocation. Int J Human-Computer Interact 37:1063–1073. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1870817
Avril E, Cegarra J, Wioland L, Navarro J (2022) Automation type and reliability impact on visual automation monitoring and human performance. Int J Human-Computer Interact 38:64–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1925435
Bekiaris E, Petica S, Brookhuis K (1997) Driver needs and public acceptance regarding telematic in-vehicle emergency control aids. In: Mobility for Everyone. 4th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, Berlin, Germany, pp 21–24
Bhattacherjee A, Premkumar G (2004) Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information technology usage: a theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Q 28:229–254
Bliss JP, Acton SA (2003) Alarm mistrust in automobiles: how collision alarm reliability affects driving. Appl Ergon 34:499–509
Cegarra J, Valéry B, Avril E, Calmettes C, Navarro J (2020) OpenMATB: a multi-attribute task battery promoting task customization, software extensibility and experiment replicability. Behav Res Methods 52:1980–1990. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01364-w
Compeau D, Higgins CA, Huff S (1999) Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: a longitudinal study. MIS Q 23:145–158
Comstock JR, Arnegard RJ (1992) The multi-attribute task battery for human operator workload and strategic behavior research. NASA Technical Memorandum, Washington, DC
Crossman ERFW (1974) Automation and skills. In: Edwards E, Lees F (eds) The Human Operator in Process Control. Taylor & Francis, London
Dingus TA, Klauer SG, Neale VL, Petersen A, Lee SE, Sudweeks JD, Perez MA, Hankey J, Ramsey DJ, Gupta S (2006) The 100-car naturalistic driving study, Phase II-results of the 100-car field experiment. (Report No. HS-810 593). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC
Dzindolet MT, Peterson SA, Pomranky RA, Pierce LG, Beck HP (2003) The role of trust in automation reliance. Int J Hum Comput Stud 58:697–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00038-7
Eysenck HJ (1970) The structure of human personality. Methuen, London
Ferraro JC, Mouloua M (2021) Effects of automation reliability on error detection and attention to auditory stimuli in a multi-tasking environment. Appl Ergon 91:103303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103303
Flavell JH (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am Psychol 34:906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Hancock PA (2007) Procedure and dynamic display relocation on performance in a multitask environment. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern Part ASystems Humans 37:47–57. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2006.886341
Hancock PA (2014) Automation: how much is too much? Ergonomics 57:449–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.816375
Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index) results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 139–183
Hoc J-M (2000) From human–machine interaction to human–machine cooperation. Ergonomics 43:833–843
Hoc J-M (2001a) Towards a cognitive approach to human–machine cooperation in dynamic situations. Int J Hum Comput Stud 54:509–540. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2000.0454
Hoc J-M (2001b) Towards ecological validity of research in cognitive ergonomics. Theor Issues Ergon Sci. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220110104970
Hoc J-M, Young MS, Blosseville J-M (2009) Cooperation between drivers and automation: implications for safety. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 10:135–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220802368856
Hoff KA, Bashir M (2015) Trust in automation: integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Hum Factors 57:407–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570
Jones E, Sundaram S, Chin W (2002) Factors leading to sales force automation use: a longitudinal analysis. J Pers Sell Sales Manag 22:145–156
Kessel CJ, Wickens CD (1982) The transfer of failure- detection skills between monitoring and controlling dynamic systems. Hum Factors 24:49–60
Kool W, McGuire JT, Rosen ZB, Botvinick MM (2010) Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. J Exp Psychol Gen 139:665
Lee JD, See K (2004) Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Hum Factors 46:50–80
Miller WD, Schmidt KD, Estepp JR, Bowers M, Davis I (2014) An updated version of the U.S. Air Force Multi-Attribute Task Battery (AF-MATB). DTIC Document.
Molloy R, Parasuraman R (1996) Monitoring an automated system for a single failure: vigilance and task complexity effects. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 38:311–322. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872096779048093
Mosier KL, Skitka LJ (1996) Human decision makers and automated decision aids: made for each other. Automation and human performance: theory and application. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 201–220
Mulder M, Abbink DA, Boer ER (2012) Sharing control with haptics seamless driver support from manual to automatic control. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 54:786–798. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812443984
Navarro J (2017) Human–machine interaction theories and lane departure warnings. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 18:519–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2016.1243274
Navarro J (2019a) A state of science on highly automated driving. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 20:366–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2018.1439544
Navarro J (2019b) Are highly automated vehicles as useful as dishwashers? Cogent Psychol 6:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2019.1575655
Navarro J, Hancock PA (2022) Did tools create humans? Theor Issues Ergon Sci. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2022.2076954
Navarro J, Osiurak F (2015) When do we use automatic tools rather than doing a task manually? influence of automatic tool speed. Am J Psychol 128:77–88. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.128.1.0077
Navarro J, Mars F, Young MS (2011) Lateral control assistance in car driving: classification, review and future prospects. IET Intell Transp Syst 5:207–220. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-its.2010.0087
Navarro J, François M, Mars F (2016) Obstacle avoidance under automated steering: impact on driving and gaze behaviours. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 43:315–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.09.007
Navarro J, Heuveline L, Avril E, Cegarra J (2018) Influence of human-machine interactions and task demand on automation selection and use. Ergonomics 61:1601–1612. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2018.1501517
Navarro J, Deniel J, Yousfi E, Jallais C, Bueno M, Fort A (2019) Does false and missed lane departure warnings impact driving performances differently? Int J Human-Computer Interact 35:1292–1302. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1519166
Navarro J, Allali S, Cabrignac N, Cegarra J (2021) Impact of pilot’s expertise on selection, use, trust, and acceptance of automation. IEEE Trans Human-Machine Syst 51:432–441. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2021.3090199
Navarro J, Osiurak F, Ha S, Communay G, Ferrier-Barbut E, Coatrine A, Gaujoux V, Hernout E, Cegarra J, Volante W, Hancock PA (2022) Development of the Smart Tools Proneness Questionnaire (STP-Q): an instrument to assess the individual propensity to use smart tools. Ergonomics. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2022.2048895
Omae M, Hashimoto N, Sugamoto T, Shimizu H (2005) Measurement of driver’s reaction time to failure of steering controller during automatic driving. Rev Automot Eng 26:213–215
Onnasch L (2015) Crossing the boundaries of automation -Function allocation and reliability. Int J Hum Comput Stud 76:12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.12.004
Onnasch L, Wickens CD, Li H, Manzey D (2014) Human performance consequences of stages and levels of automation: an integrated meta-analysis. Hum Factors 56:476–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813501549
Osiurak F, Wagner C, Djerbi S, Navarro J (2013) To do it or to let an automatic tool do it? The priority of control over effort. Exp Psychol 60:453–468. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000219
Parasuraman A, Colby CL (2015) An Updated and streamlined technology readiness index: TRI 2.0. J Serv Res 18:59–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670514539730
Parasuraman R, Riley V (1997) Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 39:230–253. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886
Parasuraman R, Molloy R, Singh IL (1993a) Performance consequences of autonomation-induced “complacency.” Int J Aviat Psychol 3:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0301_1
Parasuraman R, Molloy R, Singh IL (1993b) Performance consequences of automation induced “complacency.” Int J Aviat Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0301_1
Parasuraman R, Mouloua M, Molloy R (1994) Monitoring automation failures in human-machine systems. Hum Perform Autom Syst Curr Res Trends 38:45–49
Parasuraman R, Mouloua M, Molloy R (1996) Effects of adaptive task allocation on monitoring of automated systems. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 38:665–679. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872096778827279
Parasuraman R, Hancock PA, Olofinboba O (1997) Alarm effectiveness in driver-centered collision warning systems. Ergonomics 40:390–399
Parasuraman R, Sheridan TB, Wickens CD (2000) A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern-Part A Syst Humans 30:286–297. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354
Reagan IJ, Bliss JP (2013) Perceived mental workload, trust, and acceptance resulting from exposure to advisory and incentive based intelligent speed adaptation systems. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 21:14–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2013.07.005
Santiago-espada Y, Myer RR, Latorella KA, Comstock JR (2011) The multi-attribute task battery II ( MATB-II ) software for human performance and workload research : a user’s guide NASA/TM–2011–217164, pp 1–269
Sauer J, Chavaillaz A (2018) How operators make use of wide-choice adaptable automation: observations from a series of experimental studies. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 19:135–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2017.1297866
Scerbo MW (2006) Dynamic function allocation. In: Karwowski W (ed) International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors. CRC/Taylor & Francis, London, pp 1080–1082
Scerbo MW (1996) Theoretical perspectives on adaptive automation.
Sheridan TB, Verplank WL (1978) Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. DTIC Document, Cambridge
Singh IL, Molloy R, Parasuraman R (1993) Automation-induced “complacency”: development of the complacency-potential rating scale. Int J Aviat Psychol 3:111–122. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0302_2
Stanton NA, Young MS (1998) Vehicle automation and driving performance. Ergonomics 41:1014–1028
Tomasello M, Kruger AC, Ratner HH (1993) Cultural learning. Behav Brain Sci 16:495–511
Venkatesh V, Bala H (2008) Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis Sci 39:273–315
Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage Sci 46:186–204
Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27:425–478
Wilson TD, Reinhard DA, Westgate EC, Gilbert DT, Ellerbeck N, Hahn C, Brown CL, Shaked A (2014) Just think: the challenges of the disengaged mind. Science 345:75–77
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by JN, EJ, ÉS and WA. The first draft of the manuscript was written by JN and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors do not have any financial or non-financial interests directly or indirectly related to the work submitted for publication.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Navarro, J., Jomard, E., Saleur, É. et al. Influence of automation mode use on selection rates and subjective assessment over time. Cogn Tech Work 24, 609–624 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-022-00712-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-022-00712-4