The University of Western Australia, Perth.
Defence Science and Technology Group, Melbourne, Australia.
Hum Factors. 2023 Aug;65(5):846-861. doi: 10.1177/00187208211033445. Epub 2021 Aug 2.
Examine the effects of decision risk and automation transparency on the accuracy and timeliness of operator decisions, automation verification rates, and subjective workload.
Decision aids typically benefit performance, but can provide incorrect advice due to contextual factors, creating the potential for automation disuse or misuse. Decision aids can reduce an operator's manual problem evaluation, and it can also be strategic for operators to minimize verifying automated advice in order to manage workload.
Participants assigned the optimal unmanned vehicle to complete missions. A decision aid provided advice but was not always reliable. Two levels of decision aid transparency were manipulated between participants. The risk associated with each decision was manipulated using a financial incentive scheme. Participants could use a calculator to verify automated advice; however, this resulted in a financial penalty.
For high- compared with low-risk decisions, participants were more likely to reject incorrect automated advice and were more likely to verify automation and reported higher workload. Increased transparency did not lead to more accurate decisions and did not impact workload but decreased automation verification and eliminated the increased decision time associated with high decision risk.
Increased automation transparency was beneficial in that it decreased automation verification and decreased decision time. The increased workload and automation verification for high-risk missions is not necessarily problematic given the improved automation correct rejection rate.
The findings have potential application to the design of interfaces to improve human-automation teaming, and for anticipating the impact of decision risk on operator behavior.
研究决策风险和自动化透明度对操作人员决策的准确性和及时性、自动化验证率以及主观工作负荷的影响。
决策辅助工具通常可以提高性能，但由于上下文因素，可能会提供不正确的建议，从而导致自动化的误用或弃用。决策辅助工具可以减少操作人员对问题的手动评估，而且操作人员为了管理工作负荷而尽量减少对自动化建议的验证，这也是一种策略。
参与者被分配了最佳的无人车辆来完成任务。决策辅助工具提供了建议，但并不总是可靠的。在参与者之间操纵了两种级别的决策辅助透明度。通过财务奖励计划操纵每个决策的风险。参与者可以使用计算器来验证自动化建议，但这会导致经济处罚。
与低风险决策相比，参与者更有可能拒绝不正确的自动化建议，更有可能验证自动化并报告更高的工作负荷。透明度的提高并没有导致更准确的决策，也没有影响工作负荷，但减少了自动化验证，并消除了与高决策风险相关的决策时间增加。
增加自动化透明度是有益的，因为它减少了自动化验证并缩短了决策时间。高风险任务的工作量和自动化验证增加不一定是问题，因为自动化正确拒绝率提高了。
这些发现对于改善人机团队协作的界面设计以及预测决策风险对操作人员行为的影响具有潜在的应用价值。
