@article{ref1,
title="Automation bias: decision making and performance in high-tech cockpits",
journal="International journal of aviation psychology",
year="1997",
author="Mosier, K. L. and Skitka, L. J. and Heers, S. and Burdick, M.",
volume="8",
number="1",
pages="47-63",
abstract="Automated aids and decision support tools are rapidly becoming indispensable tools in high-technology cockpits and are assuming increasing control of&quot;cognitive&quot; flight tasks, such as calculating fuel-efficient routes, navigating, or detecting and diagnosing system malfunctions and abnormalities. This study was designed to investigate automation bias, a recently documented factor in the use of automated aids and decision support systems. The term refers to omission and commission errors resulting from the use of automated cues as a heuristic replacement for vigilant information seeking and processing. Glass-cockpit pilots flew flight scenarios involving automation events or opportunities for automation-related omission and commission errors. Although experimentally manipulated accountability demands did not significantly impact performance, post hoc analyses revealed that those pilots who reported an internalized perception of &quot;accountability&quot; for their performance and strategies of interaction with the automation were significantly more likely to double-check automated functioning against other cues and less likely to commit errors than those who did not share this perception. Pilots were also lilkely to erroneously &quot;remember&quot; the presence of expected cues when describing their decision-making processes.<p /><p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1050-8414",
doi="",
url="http://dx.doi.org/"
}