Abstract
ObjectiveTo determine how lower degree of automation (DOA) reliability impacts human response to a single higher-DOA failure in simulated air traffic control conflict detection.BackgroundHigher-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.MethodParticipants (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)).ResultsWhen 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.ConclusionsReliable 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.ApplicationsProviding 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.