Adaptive Attention Allocation Support: Effects of System Conservativeness and Human Competence

  • Peter-Paul van Maanen
  • Teun Lucassen
  • Kees van Dongen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6780)

Abstract

Naval tactical picture compilation is a task for which allocation of attention to the right information at the right time is crucial. Performance on this task can be improved if a support system assists the human operator. However, there is evidence that benefits of support systems are highly dependent upon the systems’ tendency to support. This paper presents a study into the effects of different levels of support conservativeness (i.e., tendency to support) and human competence on performance and on the human’s trust in the support system. Three types of support are distinguished: fixed, liberal and conservative support. In fixed support, the system calculates an estimated optimal decision and suggests this to the human. In the liberal and conservative support types, the system estimated the important information in the problem space in order to make a correct decision and directs the human’s attention to this information. In liberal support, the system attempts to direct the human’s attention using only the assessed task requirements, whereas in conservative support, the this attempt is done provided that it has been estimated that the human is not already paying attention (more conservative). Overall results do not confirm our hypothesis that adaptive conservative support leads to the best performances. Furthermore, especially high-competent humans showed more trust in a system when delivered support was adapted to their specific needs.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bosse, T., van Lambalgen, R., van Maanen, P.P., Treur, J.: Attention manipulation for naval tactical picture compilation. In: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, IAT 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bosse, T., van Lambalgen, R., van Maanen, P.P., Treur, J.: Automated visual attention manipulation. In: Paletta, L., Tsotsos, J.K. (eds.) WAPCV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5395, pp. 257–272. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dzindolet, M.T., Beck, H.P., Pierce, L.G., Dawe, L.A.: A framework of automation use. Technical Report ARL-TR-2412, Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gao, J., Lee, J.D.: Extending decision field theory to model operator’s reliance on automation in supervisory control situations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans 36(5), 943–959 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Green, C.S., Bavelier, D.: Action video game modifies visual selective attention. Nature 423, 534–537 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grootjen, M., Neerincx, M.A., van Weert, J.C.M.: Task-based interpretation of operator state information for adaptive support. In: Foundations of Augmented Cognition: Strategic Analysis, 2nd edn. LNCS, pp. 236–242. Springer, Arlington (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hilburn, B., Jorna, P., Byrne, E., Parasuraman, R.: The effect of adaptive air traffic control (atc) decision aiding on controller mental workload. In: Human-Automation Interaction: Research and Practice, pp. 84–91 (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kahneman, D.: Attention and effort. Prentice Hall, Englewoods Cliffs (1973)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee, J.D., See, K.A.: Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors 46(1), 50–80 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parasuraman, R., Riley, V.A.: Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors 39, 230–253 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pavel, M., Wang, G., Li, K., Li, K.: Augmented cognition: Allocation of attention. In: Proceedings of 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 286–300. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    John, M.S., Smallman, H.S., Manes, D.I., Feher, B.A., Morrison, J.G.: Heuristic automation for decluttering tactical displays. Human Factors 47, 509–525 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wickens, C.D.: Processing resources in attention. In: Parasuraman, R., Davies, D.R. (eds.) Variaties of attention, pp. 63–101. Academic Press, Orland (1984)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wickens, C.D., McCarley, J.S.: Applied attention theory. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter-Paul van Maanen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Teun Lucassen
    • 3
  • Kees van Dongen
    • 1
  1. 1.TNO Human FactorsSoesterbergThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Cognitive Psychology and ErgonomicsUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations