Measuring Automation Bias and Complacency in an X-Ray Screening Task

Jacob Davis, A. Atchley, Hannah Smitherman, Hailey Simon, N. Tenhundfeld
{"title":"Measuring Automation Bias and Complacency in an X-Ray Screening Task","authors":"Jacob Davis, A. Atchley, Hannah Smitherman, Hailey Simon, N. Tenhundfeld","doi":"10.1109/SIEDS49339.2020.9106670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Automation is becoming ever more prevalent in industrial system designs, and the aviation security industry is no exception. Automated decision aids are regularly used in airport security procedures (as with the TSA) to assist operators scanning baggage for hazardous items. However, there exists serious concerns regarding the human-machine interactions. In order to safely design systems that rely on human oversight, it is imperative that we understand the consequences of design on overall task performance and system usability. To do this, we combined an x-ray screening research paradigm with a ‘wizard-of-oz’ automation verification feature to create a novel research paradigm for exploring monitoring behavior (complacency) and performance in a simulated x-ray screening task. The automation in the x-ray task provided participants with a reliable recommendation to search (hazardous items detected) or clear (no hazardous weapons detected) the baggage 80% of the time. Users’ level of complacency was measured by registering the frequency with which they chose to verify the automation by clicking a “Request Info” button. Monitoring behavior, or the percent of trials in which the user requested additional information from the automation, was low overall. However, it was significantly higher when the automation provided an inaccurate recommendation. These results indicate that users experienced automation bias, the tendency to agree with an automated decision aid. Users also exhibited complacency during the task such that they were no longer actively monitoring the system. Users may have noticed the system was unreliable, given an increase in monitoring behavior in unreliable recommendation trials, but still chose to agree with the automation rather than visually search the baggage for evidence. This demonstrates a unique threat to safety in these domains, wherein users may rely on imperfect automation, rather than their own abilities, even when they believe something is amiss.","PeriodicalId":331495,"journal":{"name":"2020 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (SIEDS)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2020 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (SIEDS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SIEDS49339.2020.9106670","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Automation is becoming ever more prevalent in industrial system designs, and the aviation security industry is no exception. Automated decision aids are regularly used in airport security procedures (as with the TSA) to assist operators scanning baggage for hazardous items. However, there exists serious concerns regarding the human-machine interactions. In order to safely design systems that rely on human oversight, it is imperative that we understand the consequences of design on overall task performance and system usability. To do this, we combined an x-ray screening research paradigm with a ‘wizard-of-oz’ automation verification feature to create a novel research paradigm for exploring monitoring behavior (complacency) and performance in a simulated x-ray screening task. The automation in the x-ray task provided participants with a reliable recommendation to search (hazardous items detected) or clear (no hazardous weapons detected) the baggage 80% of the time. Users’ level of complacency was measured by registering the frequency with which they chose to verify the automation by clicking a “Request Info” button. Monitoring behavior, or the percent of trials in which the user requested additional information from the automation, was low overall. However, it was significantly higher when the automation provided an inaccurate recommendation. These results indicate that users experienced automation bias, the tendency to agree with an automated decision aid. Users also exhibited complacency during the task such that they were no longer actively monitoring the system. Users may have noticed the system was unreliable, given an increase in monitoring behavior in unreliable recommendation trials, but still chose to agree with the automation rather than visually search the baggage for evidence. This demonstrates a unique threat to safety in these domains, wherein users may rely on imperfect automation, rather than their own abilities, even when they believe something is amiss.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
测量x射线筛查任务中的自动化偏差和自满
自动化在工业系统设计中越来越普遍,航空安防行业也不例外。自动决策辅助工具经常用于机场安全程序(与TSA一样),以帮助操作员扫描行李中的危险物品。然而,人机交互方面存在着严重的问题。为了安全地设计依赖于人类监督的系统,我们必须了解设计对整体任务性能和系统可用性的影响。为此,我们将x射线筛查研究范式与“wizard-of-oz”自动化验证功能相结合,创建了一种新的研究范式,用于探索模拟x射线筛查任务中的监测行为(自满)和表现。x光任务中的自动化为参与者提供了可靠的建议,在80%的时间内搜索(检测到危险物品)或清除(未检测到危险武器)行李。用户的自满程度是通过记录他们选择通过点击“请求信息”按钮来验证自动化的频率来衡量的。监控行为,或者用户从自动化中请求额外信息的试验百分比,总体上很低。然而,当自动化提供不准确的建议时,它明显更高。这些结果表明,用户经历了自动化偏见,倾向于同意自动化决策辅助。用户在任务期间也表现出自满情绪,因此他们不再积极地监视系统。考虑到在不可靠的推荐试验中监控行为的增加,用户可能已经注意到系统是不可靠的,但仍然选择同意自动化,而不是直观地搜索行李来寻找证据。这表明了在这些领域中对安全的独特威胁,其中用户可能依赖于不完善的自动化,而不是他们自己的能力,即使他们认为有些事情出错了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Measuring Automation Bias and Complacency in an X-Ray Screening Task Criminal Consistency and Distinctiveness Evaluating and Improving Attrition Models for the Retail Banking Industry SIEDS 2020 TOC Automated Rotor Assembly CNC Machine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1