• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

并非所有信息都是平等的:在人机协作中披露不同类型可能性信息对信任、遵从和依赖的影响,以及对任务绩效的影响。

Not All Information Is Equal: Effects of Disclosing Different Types of Likelihood Information on Trust, Compliance and Reliance, and Task Performance in Human-Automation Teaming.

机构信息

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.

出版信息

Hum Factors. 2020 Sep;62(6):987-1001. doi: 10.1177/0018720819862916. Epub 2019 Jul 26.

DOI:10.1177/0018720819862916
PMID:31348863
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The study examines the effects of disclosing different types of likelihood information on human operators' trust in automation, their compliance and reliance behaviors, and the human-automation team performance.

BACKGROUND

To facilitate appropriate trust in and dependence on automation, explicitly conveying the likelihood of automation success has been proposed as one solution. Empirical studies have been conducted to investigate the potential benefits of disclosing likelihood information in the form of automation reliability, (un)certainty, and confidence. Yet, results from these studies are rather mixed.

METHOD

We conducted a human-in-the-loop experiment with 60 participants using a simulated surveillance task. Each participant performed a compensatory tracking task and a threat detection task with the help of an imperfect automated threat detector. Three types of likelihood information were presented: overall likelihood information, predictive values, and hit and correct rejection rates. Participants' trust in automation, compliance and reliance behaviors, and task performance were measured.

RESULTS

Human operators informed of the predictive values or the overall likelihood value, rather than the hit and correct rejection rates, relied on the decision aid more appropriately and obtained higher task scores.

CONCLUSION

Not all likelihood information is equal in aiding human-automation team performance. Directly presenting the hit and correct rejection rates of an automated decision aid should be avoided.

APPLICATION

The findings can be applied to the design of automated decision aids.

摘要

目的

本研究考察了在人机团队中,向人类操作员披露不同类型的可能性信息对其对自动化的信任、遵守和依赖行为以及人机团队绩效的影响。

背景

为了促进对自动化的适当信任和依赖,明确传达自动化成功的可能性被提出作为一种解决方案。已经进行了实证研究,以调查以自动化可靠性、(不)确定性和信心形式披露可能性信息的潜在好处。然而,这些研究的结果却相当混杂。

方法

我们使用模拟监视任务,通过 60 名参与者进行了一项人在回路实验。每个参与者在不完美的自动化威胁探测器的帮助下执行补偿跟踪任务和威胁检测任务。展示了三种类型的可能性信息:总体可能性信息、预测值以及命中和正确拒绝率。测量了参与者对自动化的信任、遵守和依赖行为以及任务绩效。

结果

与命中和正确拒绝率相比,被告知预测值或总体可能性值的人类操作员更恰当地依赖决策辅助工具,并获得了更高的任务得分。

结论

并非所有可能性信息在辅助人机团队绩效方面都是平等的。应避免直接呈现自动化决策辅助工具的命中和正确拒绝率。

应用

这些发现可应用于自动化决策辅助工具的设计。

相似文献

1
Not All Information Is Equal: Effects of Disclosing Different Types of Likelihood Information on Trust, Compliance and Reliance, and Task Performance in Human-Automation Teaming.并非所有信息都是平等的:在人机协作中披露不同类型可能性信息对信任、遵从和依赖的影响,以及对任务绩效的影响。
Hum Factors. 2020 Sep;62(6):987-1001. doi: 10.1177/0018720819862916. Epub 2019 Jul 26.
2
Effects of information source, pedigree, and reliability on operator interaction with decision support systems.信息来源、谱系及可靠性对操作员与决策支持系统交互的影响。
Hum Factors. 2007 Oct;49(5):773-85. doi: 10.1518/001872007X230154.
3
Trust and the Compliance-Reliance Paradigm: The Effects of Risk, Error Bias, and Reliability on Trust and Dependence.信任与合规-依赖范式:风险、错误偏差和可靠性对信任与依赖的影响。
Hum Factors. 2017 May;59(3):333-345. doi: 10.1177/0018720816682648. Epub 2016 Dec 19.
4
More Is Not Always Better: Impacts of AI-Generated Confidence and Explanations in Human-Automation Interaction.并非越多越好:人工智能生成的信心和解释对人机交互的影响。
Hum Factors. 2024 Dec;66(12):2606-2620. doi: 10.1177/00187208241234810. Epub 2024 Mar 4.
5
The reliability and transparency bases of trust in human-swarm interaction: principles and implications.信任在人机群体交互中的可靠性和透明度基础:原则与启示。
Ergonomics. 2020 Sep;63(9):1116-1132. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2020.1764112. Epub 2020 May 13.
6
Who's the real expert here? Pedigree's unique bias on trust between human and automated advisers.这里谁才是真正的专家? pedigree 对人类和自动化顾问之间信任的独特偏见。
Appl Ergon. 2019 Nov;81:102907. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102907. Epub 2019 Jul 26.
7
Toward Quantifying Trust Dynamics: How People Adjust Their Trust After Moment-to-Moment Interaction With Automation.量化信任动态:人们如何在与自动化进行实时交互后调整其信任。
Hum Factors. 2023 Aug;65(5):862-878. doi: 10.1177/00187208211034716. Epub 2021 Aug 29.
8
Automation trust and attention allocation in multitasking workspace.多任务工作空间中的自动化信任和注意力分配。
Appl Ergon. 2018 Jul;70:194-201. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2018.03.008. Epub 2018 Mar 20.
9
Simple manipulations of anthropomorphism fail to induce perceptions of humanness or improve trust in an automated agent.简单的拟人化操作无法引起对人类的感知或提高对自动化代理的信任。
Appl Ergon. 2023 Sep;111:104027. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2023.104027. Epub 2023 Apr 24.
10
Trust and reliance on an automated combat identification system.对自动作战识别系统的信任与依赖。
Hum Factors. 2009 Jun;51(3):281-91. doi: 10.1177/0018720809338842.

引用本文的文献

1
Beyond Binary Decisions: Evaluating the Effects of AI Error Type on Trust and Performance in AI-Assisted Tasks.超越二元决策:评估人工智能错误类型对人工智能辅助任务中的信任和性能的影响。
Hum Factors. 2025 Mar 19:187208251326795. doi: 10.1177/00187208251326795.
2
The Effects of Presenting AI Uncertainty Information on Pharmacists' Trust in Automated Pill Recognition Technology: Exploratory Mixed Subjects Study.呈现人工智能不确定性信息对药剂师对自动药丸识别技术信任度的影响:探索性混合主题研究
JMIR Hum Factors. 2025 Feb 11;12:e60273. doi: 10.2196/60273.
3
Calibrating Trust, Reliance and Dependence in Variable-Reliability Automation.
校准对可变可靠性自动化的信任、依赖和依靠程度
Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2024 Sep;68(1):604-610. doi: 10.1177/10711813241277531. Epub 2024 Sep 2.
4
Effects of machine learning errors on human decision-making: manipulations of model accuracy, error types, and error importance.机器学习错误对人类决策的影响:模型精度、错误类型和错误重要性的操纵。
Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2024 Aug 26;9(1):56. doi: 10.1186/s41235-024-00586-2.
5
Trust with increasing and decreasing reliability.可信度递增和递减的信任。
Hum Factors. 2024 Dec;66(12):2569-2589. doi: 10.1177/00187208241228636. Epub 2024 Mar 6.
6
Toward Quantifying Trust Dynamics: How People Adjust Their Trust After Moment-to-Moment Interaction With Automation.量化信任动态:人们如何在与自动化进行实时交互后调整其信任。
Hum Factors. 2023 Aug;65(5):862-878. doi: 10.1177/00187208211034716. Epub 2021 Aug 29.
7
The Effect of Informing Participants of the Response Bias of an Automated Target Recognition System on Trust and Reliance Behavior.告知参与者自动化目标识别系统响应偏差对信任和依赖行为的影响。
Hum Factors. 2023 Mar;65(2):189-199. doi: 10.1177/00187208211021711. Epub 2021 Jun 2.