Automated signal detection aids assist human operators in various activities (e.g., medical diagnosis). However, operators tend to interact with these aids in suboptimal ways. An under-considered factor that might influence operators’ aid use is the correlation between the aid’s and the operator’s observations. Although prior research has generally assumed that human operators and automated aids rely on independent information sources, correlated observations may be common in naturalistic automation-aided detection tasks. The present study explored the effects of correlated observations on automation-use by analyzing performance in a numerical signal detection task using the Contingent Cutoff (CC) model, a statistical cognitive model of automation-aided decision making. Participants completed the task with and without assistance of an aid, and in one of two conditions: correlated observations vs. uncorrelated observations. The CC model accurately described observed performance for both conditions. Overall aid use efficiency was unaffected by correlated observations.
References
1.
Anwyl-IrvineA. L.MassonniéJ.FlittonA.KirkhamN.EvershedJ. K. (2020). Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment builder. Behavior Research Methods, 52(1), 388–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428019-01237-x
BartlettM. L.McCarleyJ. S. (2017). Benchmarking Aided Decision Making in a Signal Detection Task. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 59(6), 881–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817700258
BondR. R.NovotnyT.AndrsovaI.KocL.SisakovaM.FinlayD.GuldenringD.McLaughlinJ.PeaceA.McGilliganV.LeslieS. J.WangH.MalikM.(2018). Automation bias in medicine: The influence of automated diagnoses on interpreter accuracy and uncertainty when reading electrocardiograms. Journal of Electrocardiology, 51(6), S6–S11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2018.08.007
6.
BoskemperM. M.BartlettM. L.McCarleyJ. S. (2021). Measuring the Efficiency of Automation-Aided Performance in a Simulated Baggage Screening Task. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 001872082098363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820983632
7.
DzindoletM. T.PierceL. G.BeckH. P.DaweL. A.AndersonB. W. (2001). Predicting Misuse and Disuse of Combat Identification Systems. Military Psychology, 13(3), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327876MP1303_2
8.
ElversG. C.ElrifP. (1997). The Effects of Correlation and Response Bias in Alerted Monitor Displays. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 39(4), 570–580. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778667960
9.
GelmanA.RubinD. B. (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7(4), 457–472. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011136
10.
GlancyF. H.YadavS. B.(2011). A computational model for financial reporting fraud detection. Decision Support Systems, 50(3), 595–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.08.010
11.
HautusM. J.MacmillanN. A.CreelmanC. D. (2022). Detection theory: A user’s guide (Third edition). Routledge.
12.
HealyA. F.KubovyM. (1981). Probability matching and the formation of conservative decision rules in a numerical analog of signal detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 7(5), 344–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.7.5.344
13.
KruschkeJ. K. (2015). Doing Bayesian data analysis (2nd ed.). Academic Press/Elsevier.
14.
KruschkeJ. K.VanpaemelW. (2015). Bayesian estimation in hierarchical models. In BusemeyerJ. R.WangZ.TownsendJ. T.EidelsA. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of computational and mathematical psychology (pp. 279– 299). Oxford University Press.
MetzC. E.ShenJ.-H. (1992). Gains in Accuracy from Replicated Readings of Diagnostic Images: Prediction and Assessment in Terms of ROC Analysis. Medical Decision Making, 12(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9201200110
17.
MeyerJ. (2001). Effects of Warning Validity and Proximity on Responses to Warnings. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 43(4), 563–572. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872001775870395
18.
MurrellG. A. (1977). Combination of evidence in a probabilistic visual search and detection task. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(77)90015-0
19.
NovotnyT.BondR.AndrsovaI.KocL.SisakovaM.FinlayD.GuldenringD.SpinarJ.MalikM.(2017). The role of computerized diagnostic proposals in the interpretation of the 12-lead electrocardiogram by cardiology and non-cardiology fellows. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 101, 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.02.007
20.
ParasuramanR. (2000). Designing automation for human use: Empirical studies and quantitative models. Ergonomics, 43(7), 931–951. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401300409125
21.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 39(2), 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886
22.
ParasuramanR.MolloyR.SinghI. L. (1993). Performance Consequences of Automation-Induced “Complacency.”The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0301_1
23.
RiceS.McCarleyJ. S. (2011). Effects of response bias and judgment framing on operator use of an automated aid in a target detection task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(4), 320–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024243
24.
RobinsonD. E.SorkinR. D. (1985). A contingent criterion model of computer assisted detection. In EbertsR. E.EbertsC. G. (Eds.), Trends in ergonomics/human factors II (pp. 75–82). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland.
25.
SorkinR. D.HaysC. J.WestR. (2001). Signal-detection analysis of group decision making. Psychological Review, 108(1), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033295X.108.1.183
26.
TannerW. P.BirdsallT. G. (1958). Definitions of d ′ and η as Psychophysical Measures. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 30(10), 922–928. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1909408
27.
WangL.JamiesonG. A.HollandsJ. G. (2009). Trust and Reliance on an Automated Combat Identification System. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 51(3), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720809338842
28.
WiegmannD.McCarleyJ. S.KramerA. F.WickensC. D. (2006). Age and automation interact to influence performance of a simulated luggage screening task. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 77(8), 825–831.
