{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02079002079002079, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001386001386001386, 'mean_word_length': 5.333333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Automation Use and Automation Bias

The availability of automation and automated decision aids feeds into a general human tendency to travel the road of least cognitive effort. A series of studies on “automation bias,” the tendency to use automation as a heuristic replacement for vigilant information seeking and processing, has identified several factors associated with this bias. We have examined expert vs. novice (student) performance, and found that automation error rates are comparable across populations, and are not significantly different between 1- and 2-person crews. Professional pilots were sensitive to the importance of correctness for critical flight tasks, and made fewer errors on events involving altitude and heading errors than frequency discrepancies. Training for automation bias reduced commission errors for students, suggesting the importance of early intervention and training on this issue. In other studies, participants in a non-automated condition out-performed those using an automated aid during equivalent failure events; and participants tended to exhibit an “action bias” when any source of information recommended action, whether or not it was appropriate. The intent of this presentation is to provide an overview and summary of the findings of this research program, and to place it within the context of work that has been done in areas such as human-centered design, and training for automation use.