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

Evidence from Resource 5 pieces of evidence from this resource.

Muthard, E.K. & Wickens, C.D. (2003). Factors That Mediate Flight Plan Monitoring and Errors in Plan Revision: An Examination of Planning Under Automated Conditions. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 857-62.

  1.  
  2. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: In the plan monitoring phase, we wished to first examine the effect of highlighting on change detection and did so by comparing performance in detecting changes to hazards that were highlighted to those that were not highlighted as a function of workload. The analyses revealed that changes to highlighted hazards were detected more accurately (F(1, 26) = 27.72, p < .001) and more quickly (F(1, 22) = 4.47, p = .05) than changes to nonhighlighted elements. Additionally, a speed accuracy tradeoff was found for workload, such that changes in the low workload condition were detected 36.0% more accurately (F(1, 26) = 7.68, p = .01), but 6.7 s more slowly (F(1, 22) = 8.88, p = .007) than those in the high workload condition. The automation and workload interaction was not significant for accuracy (F(1, 26) = 1.75, p > .10) or response time (F(1, 22) = .27, p > .10). (page 4/5)
    Issue: automation may adversely affect pilot workload (Issue #79) See Issue details
    Strength: +2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation

  3.  
  4. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: In the plan monitoring phase, we wished to first examine the effect of highlighting on change detection and did so by comparing performance in detecting changes to hazards that were highlighted to those that were not highlighted as a function of workload. The analyses revealed that changes to highlighted hazards were detected more accurately (F(1, 26) = 27.72, p < .001) and more quickly (F(1, 22) = 4.47, p = .05) than changes to nonhighlighted elements. Additionally, a speed accuracy tradeoff was found for workload, such that changes in the low workload condition were detected 36.0% more accurately (F(1, 26) = 7.68, p = .01), but 6.7 s more slowly (F(1, 22) = 8.88, p = .007) than those in the high workload condition. The automation and workload interaction was not significant for accuracy (F(1, 26) = 1.75, p > .10) or response time (F(1, 22) = .27, p > .10). (page 4/5)
    Issue: displays (visual and aural) may be poorly designed (Issue #92) See Issue details
    Strength: +2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation

  5.  
  6. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: When pilots were presented with an automated aid, both accuracy (t(15) = 1.94, p = .07, marginally significant) and confidence (t(15) = 2.67, p = .02, significant) were higher with automation than without the aid, though these differences were only observed for the high workload condition, as shown in Table 1. (page 4/5)
    Issue: pilots may lack confidence in automation (Issue #46) See Issue details
    Strength: -2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation

  7.  
  8. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: To assess the effects of workload and automation on plan selection performance, we examined plan selection accuracy, response time, and choice confidence in three ANOVAs. The main effect of workload was not significant for accuracy (F(1, 27) = 1.21, p > .10), response time (F(1, 26) = 1.41, p > .10), or confidence (F(1, 27) = 1.93, p > .10). The automation main effect was also not significant for accuracy (F(1, 27) = 1.21, p > .10), response time (F(1, 26) = .94, p > .10), but was significant for the confidence dependent variable (F(1, 27) = 8.36, p = .01), suggesting that pilots were more confident in plan selection with the automated aid than without. (page 4/5)
    Issue: pilots may lack confidence in automation (Issue #46) See Issue details
    Strength: -2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation

  9.  
  10. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: To assess the effects of workload and automation on plan selection performance, we examined plan selection accuracy, response time, and choice confidence in three ANOVAs. The main effect of workload was not significant for accuracy (F(1, 27) = 1.21, p > .10), response time (F(1, 26) = 1.41, p > .10), or confidence (F(1, 27) = 1.93, p > .10). The automation main effect was also not significant for accuracy (F(1, 27) = 1.21, p > .10), response time (F(1, 26) = .94, p > .10), but was significant for the confidence dependent variable (F(1, 27) = 8.36, p = .01), suggesting that pilots were more confident in plan selection with the automated aid than without. (page 4)
    Issue: automation use may slow pilot responses (Issue #161) See Issue details
    Strength: -2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation
Flight Deck Automation Issues Website  
© 1997-2013 Research Integrations, Inc.