1999
DOI: 10.1518/001872099779577363
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interactive Critiquing as a Form of Decision Support: An Empirical Evaluation

Abstract: This research focused on the design of a decision-support system to assist blood bankers in identifying alloantibodies in patients' blood. It was hypothesized that critiquing, a technique in which a computer monitors human performance for errors, would be an effective role for such a decision-support system if the error monitoring was unobtrusive and if the critiquing was in response to both intermediate and final conclusions made by the user. A prototype critiquing system monitored medical technologists for (… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
46
0
1

Year Published

2001
2001
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 75 publications
(47 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
46
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Mutual control is very often suggested to avoid complacency e!ects (Smith & Crabtree, 1975;Clark & Smyth, 1993;Layton et al, 1994;Denecker & Hoc, 1997;Glover, Prawitt & Spilker, 1997;Roth, Malin & Schreckenghost, 1997;Smith et al, 1997;Dijkstra, 1999;Guerlain et al, 1999;Skitka, Mosier & Burdick, 1999). This research trend usually compares situations, where the machine does the job and the human uses the result, to situations where the machine &&looks over the operator's shoulder'' and detects discrepancies from the usual procedure, in a mutual control way.…”
Section: Mutual Control Interferencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mutual control is very often suggested to avoid complacency e!ects (Smith & Crabtree, 1975;Clark & Smyth, 1993;Layton et al, 1994;Denecker & Hoc, 1997;Glover, Prawitt & Spilker, 1997;Roth, Malin & Schreckenghost, 1997;Smith et al, 1997;Dijkstra, 1999;Guerlain et al, 1999;Skitka, Mosier & Burdick, 1999). This research trend usually compares situations, where the machine does the job and the human uses the result, to situations where the machine &&looks over the operator's shoulder'' and detects discrepancies from the usual procedure, in a mutual control way.…”
Section: Mutual Control Interferencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Approaches such as filters, summarizers, and automated search term selectors (e.g., Maes, 1998, Marx and Schmandt, 1996, Brann, Thurman, and Mitchell, 1996 are strongly committed to the machine processing being correct. Methods that are more weakly committed to machine pre-processing include using automation to index, cluster, organize, highlight, sort, and prioritize elements in a data field, (e.g., Oakes andTaylor, 1998, Letsche andBerry, 1997) and "cooperative machine agents" that notify, remind, or critique a human partner (e.g., Gruen et al, 1999, Guerlain et al, 1999, Fischer and Reeves, 1992.…”
Section: Workload Bottleneckmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The manual mode gives users the freedom to choose a desired course, while still providing efficient and fast path manipulation, as well as confirmation that the path is safe from hazardous areas and poor weather regions (as determined by the thresholds set by the depth and visibility sliders (E and F diamonds)). In this manual mode, automation is leveraged as a "critic" (Guerlain et al, 1999), so that it can prevent user error, but only for path-related issues (including depth and visibility violations). The critiquing automation in the Manual mode does not take into account any information about the contacts.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%