Work

The Impact of Lower Degree Automation Reliability on Higher Degree Automation Failure Detection in Simulated Air Traffic Control

Year: 2025

Type: article

Abstract: Objective To determine how lower degree of automation (DOA) reliability impacts human response to a single higher-DOA failure in simulated air traffic control conflict detection. Background Higher-DOA systems apply higher levels of automation to later stages of human information processing. Higher-DOA typically results in better routine performance, and lower-DOA with better automation failure response. If both are provided and lower-DOA is reliable, it could support higher DOA failure detection. Method Participants ( N = 192) received a combination of lower-DOA and/or higher-DOA. Lower-DOA highlighted aircraft conflicts and near-misses, leaving participants to manually resolve conflicts. Higher-DOA resolved conflicts. Automation failed once. Participants were provided one of four types of automation: lower-DOA, where lower-DOA failed (L F ); higher-DOA, where higher-DOA failed (H F ); both lower- and higher-DOA, where only higher-DOA failed (LH F ); or both lower- and higher-DOA, where both failed (L F H F ). Results When only the higher-DOA component of combined lower- and higher-DOA failed (LH F ), participants detected the automation failure 23.6s faster and more accurately (miss rate = −.08) compared to higher-DOA only (H F ). However, more participants missed the automation failure when lower-DOA failed (L F = +.42; L F H F = +.15), compared to the H F condition. Conclusions Reliable lower-DOA can support higher DOA failure detection when both are presented. However, poorer automation failure detection with lower-DOA failure suggests participants over-relied on aircraft highlighting to direct attention to potential conflicts. Applications Providing both lower- and higher-DOA together could be beneficial when higher-DOA fails but lower-DOA remains reliable, but conversely, detrimental if lower-DOA also fails.

Source: Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

DOI: 10.1177/00187208251335536

Authors: Vanessa K. Bowden, Isabella Gegoff, Philippe J. Kilpatrick, Shayne Loft

Institution: The University of Western Australia

Language: English

Topic: Human-Automation Interaction and Safety

Subfield: Social Psychology

Field: Psychology

Domain: Social Sciences

Open Access status: hybrid

Estimated APC paid: $1,500

Funder: Australian Research Council