Search results

The effects of adaptive task allocation on monitoring for automation failure during multi task flight simulation were examined. Participants monitored an automated engine status task while simultaneously performing tracking and fuel management tasks over three 3D-min sessions. Two methods of adaptive task allocation, both involving temporary return of the automated engine status task to the human operator ("human control"), were examined as a possible countermeasure to monitoring inefficiency. For the model-based adaptive group, the engine status task was allocated to all participants in the middle of the second session for 10 min, following which it was again returned to automation control. The same occurred for the performance-based adaptive group, but only if an individual participant's monitoring performance up to that point did not meet a specified criterion. For the nonadaptive control groups, the engine status task remained automated throughout the experiment. All groups had low probabilities of detection of automation failures for the first 40 min spent with automation. However, following the lO-min intervening period of human control, both adaptive groups detected significantly more automation failures during the subsequent blocks under automation control. The results show that adaptive task allocation can enhance monitoring of automated systems. Both model-based and performance-based allocation improved monitoring of automation. Implications for the design of automated systems are discussed.

Confidence in and responses to an unreliable test alarm were studied in the presence of nearby unspecified alarms. The test alarm's reliability rate was represented as averaging "true" only 50% or 60% of the time. Confidence or response rates ranged proportionately from 23% to 97% with the number of active alarms within 5, 6, 7, or 9 annunciator arrays. Adjacent alarms resulted in confidence estimates that were higher (by about 10%) than those with the same number of active alarms spaced up to 3 positions away. Simultaneously activated alarms resulted in a more than 20% increase in "true" responses compared with the same number of alarms offset in time by up to 32 s, regardless of which came first. Active alarms "known" to be functionally related to, or independent of, the test alarm substantially raised or lowered responding but did not completely overcome prior effects. These findings indicate that presumptions that operators' responses are not influenced by nearby alarms, regardless of their function, may be unwarranted. Applications of this research include suggestions to improve responding and training recommendations.