Adaptive Approaches Displays Controls Systems World State

Adaptive Approaches Displays, Controls & Systems World State Adaptive Automation removes a human from an aspect of the control loop … with what results?

High levels of automation (which remove operators from portions of the task/control loop) have been shown to … Increase human workload at critical times if not properly designed [1, 2] Decrease human situation awareness [3, 4] Produce human complacency (~ unwarranted trust) [5] Result in human skill degradation [6] Decrease human acceptance [7]; increase human dissatisfaction [8] Provide inferior human + machine system performance (relative to lower levels of automation) [9]

Would you want/trust an assistant who always handed you ostensibly right information – with no input/instruction/clarification from you? Wouldn’t trust, coordination, SA and maybe performance be improved by explicit, meta-level intent coordination?

Increased awareness of the situation and of system performance Better tuning of trust and better automation reliance decisions (since operators instruct automation how to behave) Better skill retention (through allowing the user to perform tasks when needed or desired) Better balance of mental workload (if humans are better assessors of their needs than Aug. Cog systems) Better human + machine performance (if/when users make better judgments than automation about what is needed to complement their abilities). Leaving the user in charge yields greater automation acceptance, AND greater sense of being primarily responsible—in turn yielding greater attention and concern for the situation and all aspects of system performance.

Workload levels consistently higher for Baseline (AMEP) than for RPA (CDAS) Significant differences for 4 of 6 TLX subscales (and close for the 5 th)

Not Very Useful Of Of Con. Use siderable Use Page Selection Symbol Selection Window Location Pan & Zoom Fre- Now & Selquently Then dom

Mission Task Pilot Task Co-Pilot Task Associate Task