ObjectiveThis study investigated whether individual differences in multi-tasking ability (MTa) modulate the benefit and cost of supervising imperfect automation on performance, workload, situation awareness, stress, and trust in simulated air traffic control (ATC).BackgroundAutomation is rarely perfectly reliable, and automation failures can have significant detrimental effects. Prior work established that MTa can modulate the benefit of perfectly reliable automation. However, it is unknown whether MTa influences the cost of supervising imperfect automation.MethodsMTa was indexed using a latent factor from three cognitive tasks completed by 113 undergraduate students. Participants completed two ATC blocks: one without automation (manual) and one with automated assistance for accepting incoming aircraft, handing-off outgoing aircraft, and conflict detection (violations of minimum separation). Conflict detection automation was perfectly reliable. Automation highlighting aircraft needing acceptance and hand-off was imperfect, missing 30% of events (the "unreliable" trials).ResultsLower-MTa participants obtained greater performance benefits to aircraft hand-off from reliable-automation but suffered greater costs from unreliable automation compared to manual hand-off, relative to higher-MTa participants. Situation awareness was improved by automation provision, and workload reduced, although MTa did not vary these effects. Stress reduction with automation, compared to manual, was greater for lower-MTa compared to higher-MTa participants. Higher-MTa participants calibrated trust across the different reliability of ATC tasks more effectively.ConclusionMTa can lead to differentiated effects of imperfect automation on aircraft hand-off, perceived stress and trust.ApplicationMTa may warrant consideration in personnel hiring and role selection for work contexts where automation reliability is volatile.
Greenwell-Barnden et al. (Tue,) studied this question.