Allocating Functions Rationally between Humans and Machines

Sheridan, Thomas B.; Cott, Harold P. Van; Woods, David D.; Pew, Richard W.; Hancock, Peter A.

doi:10.1177/106480469800600305

Cited by 24 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The thorny human factors issue of allocation of function has typically been based on stereotypical characteristics of human and computer capabilities, an approach that has met with marginal success (Dialogs on Function Allocation, 2000; Jordan, 1963;Sheridan, 1998). Hancock et al (1985) suggested that the issue and its attendant problems may be bypassed if function allocation is viewed as dynamic rather than static.…”

Section: Adaptive Automationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human-Automation Interaction

Sheridan¹,

Parasuraman²

2005

Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics

Self Cite

349

235

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Automation does not mean humans are replaced; quite the opposite. Increasingly, humans are asked to interact with automation in complex and typically large-scale systems, including aircraft and air traffic control, nuclear power, manufacturing plants, military systems, homes, and hospitals. This is not an easy or error-free task for either the system designer or the human operator/automation supervisor, especially as computer technology becomes ever more sophisticated. This review outlines recent research and challenges in the area, including taxonomies and qualitative models of human-automation interaction; descriptions of automation-related accidents and studies of adaptive automation; and social, political, and ethical issues.

show abstract

Section: Adaptive Automationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human-Automation Interaction

Sheridan¹,

Parasuraman²

2005

Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics

Self Cite

349

235

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, tasks that are putatively performed better by machines should be automated, whereas those that humans do better should not. Unfortunately, although function allocation methods are useful in principle, it has proved difficult in practice to use procedures such as the Fitts List to determine which functions should be automated in a system [76].…”

Section: Alternatives Limitations and Extensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation

Parasuraman

Sheridan

Wickens

2000

IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. A

2,750

2,019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Technical developments in computer hardware and software now make it possible to introduce automation into virtually all aspects of human-machine systems. Given these technical capabilities, which system functions should be automated and to what extent? We outline a model for types and levels of automation that provides a framework and an objective basis for making such choices. Appropriate selection is important because automation does not merely supplant but changes human activity and can impose new coordination demands on the human operator. We propose that automation can be applied to four broad classes of functions: 1) information acquisition; 2) information analysis; 3) decision and action selection; and 4) action implementation. Within each of these types, automation can be applied across a continuum of levels from low to high, i.e., from fully manual to fully automatic. A particular system can involve automation of all four types at different levels. The human performance consequences of particular types and levels of automation constitute primary evaluative criteria for automation design using our model. Secondary evaluative criteria include automation reliability and the costs of decision/action consequences, among others. Examples of recommended types and levels of automation are provided to illustrate the application of the model to automation design.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, static function allocation has been criticized in recent years (Fuld 1993, Sheridon 1998. Flexible (Rouse 1976) or dynamic function allocation uses the system's resources more fully, provides a relatively constant workload level for humans and allows them to have a flexible role in the system while gaining a coherent view of the overall system functions.…”

Section: Let-the-machine-do-itmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theoretical issues in the design of visual inspection systems

Jiang

Gramopadhye

Melloy

2004

Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this review essay is to both chronicle and analyse literature in the area of visual inspection. Classical as well as contemporary papers are included to describe both the historical development and the state of the art of visual inspection theories and technologies. Human operators, despite well-documented problems, often perform visual inspection. While supervized machine systems obviate some of the problems associated with human inspectors, other problems still exist. In particular, accounting for a supervisor's perception of a machine's performance (as gauged, e.g. by trust) and consequent actions. The difficulties associated with these two alternatives have led to the emergence of a third alternative: collaborative human/machine or hybrid systems, which combine the advantages of both alternatives-in theory. However, in practice, how to best distribute the functions between a human and machine, in a dynamic environment in real time, is problematic. Moreover, a human's perceptions of its counterpart's performance remain an issue. These unresolved problems are subjects for future research. In the interim, the alternatives are critiqued to create a basis for establishing guidelines to select the alternative that is best suited for a given situation.

show abstract

Allocating Functions Rationally between Humans and Machines

Cited by 24 publications

References 8 publications

Human-Automation Interaction

Human-Automation Interaction

A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation

Theoretical issues in the design of visual inspection systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About