+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

From Trust in Automation to Decision Neuroscience: Applying Cognitive Neuroscience Methods to Understand and Improve Interaction Decisions Involved in Human Automation Interaction



From Trust in Automation to Decision Neuroscience: Applying Cognitive Neuroscience Methods to Understand and Improve Interaction Decisions Involved in Human Automation Interaction



Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 10: 290



Human automation interaction (HAI) systems have thus far failed to live up to expectations mainly because human users do not always interact with the automation appropriately. Trust in automation (TiA) has been considered a central influence on the way a human user interacts with an automation; if TiA is too high there will be overuse, if TiA is too low there will be disuse. However, even though extensive research into TiA has identified specific HAI behaviors, or trust outcomes, a unique mapping between trust states and trust outcomes has yet to be clearly identified. Interaction behaviors have been intensely studied in the domain of HAI and TiA and this has led to a reframing of the issues of problems with HAI in terms of reliance and compliance. We find the behaviorally defined terms reliance and compliance to be useful in their functionality for application in real-world situations. However, we note that once an inappropriate interaction behavior has occurred it is too late to mitigate it. We therefore take a step back and look at the interaction decision that precedes the behavior. We note that the decision neuroscience community has revealed that decisions are fairly stereotyped processes accompanied by measurable psychophysiological correlates. Two literatures were therefore reviewed. TiA literature was extensively reviewed in order to understand the relationship between TiA and trust outcomes, as well as to identify gaps in current knowledge. We note that an interaction decision precedes an interaction behavior and believe that we can leverage knowledge of the psychophysiological correlates of decisions to improve joint system performance. As we believe that understanding the interaction decision will be critical to the eventual mitigation of inappropriate interaction behavior, we reviewed the decision making literature and provide a synopsis of the state of the art understanding of the decision process from a decision neuroscience perspective. We forward hypotheses based on this understanding that could shape a research path toward the ability to mitigate interaction behavior in the real world.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 057902535

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 27445741

DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00290


Related references

Automation Transparency: Implications of Uncertainty Communication for Human-Automation Interaction and Interfaces. Ergonomics 2018: 1-22, 2018

Human Factors in Hazardous Situations || The 'Problem' with Automation: Inappropriate Feedback and Interaction, not 'Over-Automation'. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B Biological Sciences 327(1241): 585-593, 1990

From 'automation' to 'autonomy': the importance of trust repair in human-machine interaction. Ergonomics 2018: 1-19, 2018

Human-automation interaction for multiple robot control: the effect of varying automation assistance and individual differences on operator performance. Ergonomics 61(8): 1033-1045, 2018

Improving the driver-automation interaction: an approach using automation uncertainty. Human Factors 55(6): 1130-1141, 2014

Human Interaction with Levels of Automation and Decision-Aid Fidelity in the Supervisory Control of Multiple Simulated Unmanned Air Vehicles. Presence Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 11(4): 335-351, 2002

The 'problem' with automation: inappropriate feedback and interaction, not 'over-automation'. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 327(1241): 585-593, 1990

Modeling Automation With Cognitive Work Analysis to Support Human-Automation Coordination. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 11(4): 299-322, 2018

In vivo robotics: the automation of neuroscience and other intact-system biological fields. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1305: 63-71, 2014

Experience of automation failures in training: effects on trust, automation bias, complacency and performance. Ergonomics 59(6): 767-780, 2017

A dynamic model of interaction between reliance on automation and cooperation in multi-operator multi-automation situations. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 36(5): 511-526, 2006

An Accessible Cognitive Modeling Tool for Evaluation of Pilot–Automation Interaction. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 22(4): 319-342, 2012

Making Cognitive Neuroscience Educationally Relevant: Creating Bidirectional Collaborations Between Educational Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience. Educational Psychology Review 10(3): 343-354, 1998

Trust in automation and automation designers: Implications for HCI and HMI. Computers in Human Behavior 29(6): 2208-2210, 2013

The cognitive neuroscience of human decision making: a review and conceptual framework. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews 3(3): 159-172, 2005