No abstract

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Abstract (a) Objective: Participants performed a tracking task and system monitoring task while aided by diagnostic automation. The goal of the study was to examine operator compliance and reliance as affected by automation failures, and to clarify claims regarding independence of these two constructs. (b) Background: Background data revealed a trend towards non-independence of the compliance-reliance constructs. (c) Method: Thirty-two undergraduate students performed the simulation that presented the visual display and collected dependent measures. (d) Results: False alarm prone automation hurt overall performance more than miss-prone automation. False alarm prone automation also clearly affected both operator compliance and reliance, while miss-prone automation only appeared to affect operator reliance. (e) Conclusion: Compliance and reliance do not appear to be entirely independent of each other. (f) Application: False alarms appear to be more damaging to overall performance than misses, and designers must take the compliancereliance constructs into affect.

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Abstract (a) Objective: Participants performed a tracking task and system monitoring task while aided by diagnostic automation. The goal of the study was to examine operator compliance and reliance as affected by automation failures, and to clarify claims regarding independence of these two constructs. (b) Background: Background data revealed a trend towards non-independence of the compliance-reliance constructs. (c) Method: Thirty-two undergraduate students performed the simulation that presented the visual display and collected dependent measures. (d) Results: False alarm prone automation hurt overall performance more than miss-prone automation. False alarm prone automation also clearly affected both operator compliance and reliance, while miss-prone automation only appeared to affect operator reliance. (e) Conclusion: Compliance and reliance do not appear to be entirely independent of each other. (f) Application: False alarms appear to be more damaging to overall performance than misses, and designers must take the compliancereliance constructs into affect.

With unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), 36 licensed pilots flew both single-UAV and dual-UAV simulated military missions. Pilots were required to navigate each UAV through a series of mission legs in one of the following three conditions: a baseline condition, an auditory autoalert condition, and an autopilot condition. Pilots were responsible for (a) mission completion, (b) target search, and (c) systems monitoring. Results revealed that both the autoalert and the autopilot automation improved overall performance by reducing task interference and alleviating workload. The autoalert system benefited performance both in the automated task and mission completion task, whereas the autopilot system benefited performance in the automated task, the mission completion task, and the target search task. Practical implications for the study include the suggestion that reliable automation can help alleviate task interference and reduce workload, thereby allowing pilots to better handle concurrent tasks during single- and multiple-UAV flight control.

We examined the effects of modality (auditory versus visual) and spatial separation when a simulated vehicle control (tracking) task (the ongoing task: OT) was time shared with a digit entry task (the interrupting task: IT), contrasting the predictions of auditory preemption theory with that of multiple resource theory. Participants performed the tracking task with auditory display of the phone numbers, or with visual display at eccentricities ranging from 0 deg (overlay) to 45 deg. Auditory input improved IT performance relative to visual, but disrupted OT performance, thereby supporting the role of auditory preemption. This cost did not grow with longer messages. In contrast, at eccentricities above 15 deg, auditory superiority emerged for both tasks, highlighting the role of multiple resources, and separation produced greater costs to the OT than to the IT. Therefore, both discrete tasks, and auditory delivery have inherent preemptive effects on the continuous visual OT. The results are also interpreted in the context of the non-linear costs to dual task performance with increasing separation from the eye-field to the headfield, and the support for different visual hemi-fields for concurrent processing of verbal and ambient spatial information.

No abstract

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Eighteen licensed pilots flew a remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) simulation on three 10-leg missions. The simulation required navigating to an enemy target, monitoring for unexpected targets in a 3D image display, and monitoring on-board systems. Both of the first two tasks required zooming in to inspect 3D images of the targets. Displays to support these activities were presented on a 19 inch Screen. Each pilot flew in a baseline condition, a condition supported by redistributing some information to the auditory modality, and a condition supported by automating much of the navigational tasks. The results revealed considerable interference between the tasks components. Some aspects of this interference were relieved by auditory offloading. However other aspects were not, suggesting that heavy cognitive demands of image manipulation dominated any benefit for using separate perceptual modalities. Navigational automation also relieved some aspects of task interference. The results are interpreted in terms of their relevance to different theories of multiple task interference, and to the concept of "cognitive tunneling".2