a Department of Psychology , University of Central Florida , Orlando , FL , 32826 , USA.
Ergonomics. 2013;56(9):1387-99. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2013.816374. Epub 2013 Sep 10.
Twelve professional pilots performed a flight simulation consisting of three component sub-tasks: (i) tracking, (ii) monitoring and (iii) targeting, respectively. The targeting sub-task required (i) target identification, (ii) weapon selection and then (iii) weapon release. Pilots performed in a fully manual condition, a partial automation condition or a fully automated condition. Automated assistance was provided for the targeting sub-task only, while tracking and monitoring sub-tasks were always performed manually. During full automation, the computer located the target, identified it and released the appropriate weapon without any pilot input. During partial automation, the computer located and identified the target while the pilot retained final control over weapon release. Significantly higher levels of tracking error distinguished manual from both automated conditions and also between the two levels of automation. Monitoring response times were also sensitive to the degree of automation engaged, with the partial-automation condition exhibiting faster responses than full automation. Findings support a design principle in which pilots retain control over final weapons release directly on the basis of objective performance outcome. These collective results support the contention that effective and principled task-partitioning should represent a central strategy for the evolution of complex human-machine systems.
Advantages of partitioning tasks between human and automated control are contingent upon the overall context of performance and the actual way the partitioning is accomplished. Simple algorithms, for example, automate on every feasible occasion, are poor design heuristics and may even prove actively harmful to overall response capacity. Transitioning humans from active controllers to passive monitors can be a problematic design choice, especially when that individual is socially deemed to retain overall responsibility for ultimate system effects in the real world.
十二名专业飞行员分别执行了飞行模拟的三个组成子任务：（i）跟踪、（ii）监控和（iii）目标定位。目标定位子任务需要（i）目标识别、（ii）武器选择，然后（iii）释放武器。飞行员在完全手动、部分自动化或完全自动化条件下执行任务。自动化辅助仅用于目标定位子任务，而跟踪和监控子任务始终手动执行。在完全自动化期间，计算机定位目标，识别目标并释放适当的武器，无需飞行员输入任何信息。在部分自动化期间，计算机定位和识别目标，而飞行员保留对武器释放的最终控制权。跟踪误差的水平显著高于手动和自动两种条件之间的水平，也高于两种自动化水平之间的水平。监控响应时间也对所涉及的自动化程度敏感，部分自动化条件的响应速度比完全自动化快。这些发现支持了一个设计原则，即飞行员根据客观绩效结果直接保留对最终武器释放的控制权。这些综合结果支持了一个观点，即有效的和有原则的任务划分应该是复杂人机系统发展的核心策略。
在性能的整体背景和实际完成任务划分的方式下，人类和自动化控制之间划分任务的优势是有条件的。例如，简单的算法会在每一个可行的场合自动化，这是一种糟糕的设计启发式方法，甚至可能对整体响应能力产生积极的危害。将人类从主动控制器转变为被动监控器可能是一个有问题的设计选择，尤其是当这个人在现实世界中被认为对最终系统的整体影响负有责任时。
