FDAI logo   ::  Site Map  ::   
Home  |  About This Website  |  Contact Us
Home » ... » Evidence from Resource

Evidence from Resource 8 pieces of evidence from this resource.

Muthard, E.K. & Wickens, C.D. (August 2002). Factors That Mediate Flight Plan Monitoring and Errors in Plan Revision: An Examination of Planning Under Automated Conditions. Nasa Technical Report AFHD-02-11/NASA-02-8. Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

  1.  
  2. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: In comparing the prevalence of plan continuation errors under the automated condition relative to baseline condition, an analysis revealed that a greater percentage of the trials in the automated condition were comprised of plan continuation errors (7 of 16 or 43.7%), than in the baseline condition (3 of 16 or 18.7%). A chi-squared test performed on these data revealed a nonsignificant trend, Χ2(1) = 2.3 3, p = 0. 13, showing that plan continuation errors were more likely under the automated condition than the baseline condition. This finding is analogous to that described above in which accuracy at selecting a flight plan at the second choice point was lower, due to the pilot’s inability to detect an automation failure, with automation than without the decision aid. (page 40)
    Issue: automation may demand attention (Issue #102) See Issue details
    Strength: +2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation

  3.  
  4. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: The pairwise t-tests revealed that pilots selected flight plans at the second choice point more quickly (M = 3.16 s, t(4) = 2.19, p = 0.09, marginally significant) as well as somewhat more confidently (M = 6.06) in the automated condition relative to the baseline condition (M = 5.96 s, 5.3 8, t(15) = 2.55, p = 0.02). For the dependent variable of accuracy, however, pilots were less accurate in the automated (M = 43.7%) than in the baseline condition (M = 75.0%), t(15)= 1.78, p = 0.09, marginally significant). Recall that it is at the second choice point in this mediumML→H plan selection condition under the attention guidance automation that a change occurs to a now important and high risk (but non-highlighted) hazard. The lowered accuracy under the automated condition reflects the pilots’ failure to notice the change in the automated condition and therefore their complacency in detecting the consequences of this automation failure. (page 40)
    Issue: automation may demand attention (Issue #102) See Issue details
    Strength: +2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation

  5.  
  6. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: On one half of trials, attention guidance automation was provided to aid the participants in selecting a flight path by highlighting the hazards that presented the most risk to the flight plans. Following the plan selection stage, pilots were asked to monitor the airspace for changes to hazards that could be either highlighted or non-highlighted as a function of their degrees of relevance for the prior choice. The present study sought to assess change detection performance as a function of automation by conducting pairwise t-tests for both accuracy and response time. This analysis included change detection performance for only the automated condition, and did not examine performance in the baseline condition, because in the baseline condition all hazards appeared at the same luminance level. Results revealed that pilots were significantly more accurate in detecting changes to elements that were highlighted (M = 45.1%) than non-highlighted (M = 14.8%), t(15) = 4.78, p < 0.001. No significant difference was found for response time, t(12) = 0.58, p > 0.10. (page 35)
    Issue: displays (visual and aural) may be poorly designed (Issue #92) See Issue details
    Strength: +2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation: displays

  7.  
  8. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: Automated aids were implemented on one half of trials to assist with the plan selection process. A marginally significant main effect was found for automation on plan selection accuracy (F(1, 15) = 3.75, p = 0.07), such that accuracy was 19.1% higher in trials with attention guidance automation (M = 78.1%), relative to the baseline condition (M = 65.6%), though automation had no significant effect on response time (F(1, 83) = 1.25, p > 0.10). The presence of automation also significantly increased confidence by 10.2% (M = 5.4, F(1, 15) = 7.16, p = 0.02), relative to the baseline condition (M = 4.9). For the measures of accuracy, response time, and confidence, no significant interaction was found for plan selection difficulty and automation, F(3, 45) = 1.63, p > 0.10; F(3, 83) = 1.09, p > 0.10; and F(3, 45) = 0.55, p > 0. 10, respectively. (page 31/32)
    Issue: automation may demand attention (Issue #102) See Issue details
    Strength: +2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation

  9.  
  10. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: The pairwise t-tests revealed that pilots selected flight plans at the second choice point more quickly (M = 3.16 s, t(4) = 2.19, p = 0.09, marginally significant) as well as somewhat more confidently (M = 6.06) in the automated condition relative to the baseline condition (M = 5.96 s, 5.3 8, t(15) = 2.55, p = 0.02). For the dependent variable of accuracy, however, pilots were less accurate in the automated (M = 43.7%) than in the baseline condition (M = 75.0%), t(15)= 1.78, p = 0.09, marginally significant). Recall that it is at the second choice point in this mediumML→H plan selection condition under the attention guidance automation that a change occurs to a now important and high risk (but non-highlighted) hazard. The lowered accuracy under the automated condition reflects the pilots’ failure to notice the change in the automated condition and therefore their complacency in detecting the consequences of this automation failure. (page 40)
    Issue: pilots may lack confidence in automation (Issue #46) See Issue details
    Strength: -2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation

  11.  
  12. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: On one half of trials, attention guidance automation was provided to aid the participants in selecting a flight path by highlighting the hazards that presented the most risk to the flight plans. Following the plan selection stage, pilots were asked to monitor the airspace for changes to hazards that could be either highlighted or non-highlighted as a function of their degrees of relevance for the prior choice. The present study sought to assess change detection performance as a function of automation by conducting pairwise t-tests for both accuracy and response time. This analysis included change detection performance for only the automated condition, and did not examine performance in the baseline condition, because in the baseline condition all hazards appeared at the same luminance level. Results revealed that pilots were significantly more accurate in detecting changes to elements that were highlighted (M = 45.1%) than non-highlighted (M = 14.8%), t(15) = 4.78, p < 0.001. No significant difference was found for response time, t(12) = 0.58, p > 0.10. (page 35)
    Issue: automation may demand attention (Issue #102) See Issue details
    Strength: -2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation: displays

  13.  
  14. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: Automated aids were implemented on one half of trials to assist with the plan selection process. A marginally significant main effect was found for automation on plan selection accuracy (F(1, 15) = 3.75, p = 0.07), such that accuracy was 19.1% higher in trials with attention guidance automation (M = 78.1%), relative to the baseline condition (M = 65.6%), though automation had no significant effect on response time (F(1, 83) = 1.25, p > 0.10). The presence of automation also significantly increased confidence by 10.2% (M = 5.4, F(1, 15) = 7.16, p = 0.02), relative to the baseline condition (M = 4.9). For the measures of accuracy, response time, and confidence, no significant interaction was found for plan selection difficulty and automation, F(3, 45) = 1.63, p > 0.10; F(3, 83) = 1.09, p > 0.10; and F(3, 45) = 0.55, p > 0. 10, respectively. (page 32)
    Issue: automation use may slow pilot responses (Issue #161) See Issue details
    Strength: -2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation

  15.  
  16. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: Automated aids were implemented on one half of trials to assist with the plan selection process. A marginally significant main effect was found for automation on plan selection accuracy (F(1, 15) = 3.75, p = 0.07), such that accuracy was 19.1% higher in trials with attention guidance automation (M = 78.1%), relative to the baseline condition (M = 65.6%), though automation had no significant effect on response time (F(1, 83) = 1.25, p > 0.10). The presence of automation also significantly increased confidence by 10.2% (M = 5.4, F(1, 15) = 7.16, p = 0.02), relative to the baseline condition (M = 4.9). For the measures of accuracy, response time, and confidence, no significant interaction was found for plan selection difficulty and automation, F(3, 45) = 1.63, p > 0.10; F(3, 83) = 1.09, p > 0.10; and F(3, 45) = 0.55, p > 0. 10, respectively. (page 32)
    Issue: pilots may lack confidence in automation (Issue #46) See Issue details
    Strength: -2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation
Flight Deck Automation Issues Website  
© 1997-2013 Research Integrations, Inc.