A Preliminary Study on the Influence of Automation over Mind Wandering Frequency in Sustained Attention
Pages 31 - 34
Abstract
To satisfy the increasing demand for safer critical systems, engineers have integrated higher levels of automation. In the context of airplane autopilot, time saved by automation, which should normally be used to plan the flight, might instead be filled by task-unrelated thoughts, or mind wandering (MW). We observed the impact of automation on MW in an operational environment. Participants were required to either avoid incoming obstacles by controlling the movements of an aircraft on a 2D radar screen or monitor an automated system performing the same task. Participants' propensity to mind wander increased with the time spent doing the task. Moreover, the time spent MW increased with automation in a significant manner. The NASA TLX, a measure of perceived workload, highlighted the influence of automation over perceived workload. Moreover, TLX scores were not correlated with MW propensity. This study shows a significant influence of automation over MW, which was not due to workload effects or task interactions.
References
[1]
René Amalberti. 1999. Automation in aviation: A human factors perspective. Handbook of aviation human factors: 173--192.
[2]
Stephen M. Casner and Jonathan W. Schooler. 2015. Vigilance impossible: Diligence, distraction, and daydreaming all lead to failures in a practical monitoring task. Consciousness and Cognition 35: 33--41.
[3]
Julien Cegarra and Nicolas Morgado. 2009. Étude des propriétés de la version francophone du NASATLX. In Communication présentée à la cinquième édition du colloque de psychologie ergonomique (Epique).
[4]
Karl Gerbert and Reiner Kemmler. 1986. The causes of causes: determinants and background variables of human factor incidents and accidents. Ergonomics 29, 11: 1439--1453.
[5]
Julia WY Kam, Elizabeth Dao, James Farley, Kevin Fitzpatrick, Jonathan Smallwood, Jonathan W. Schooler, and Todd C. Handy. 2011. Slow fluctuations in attentional control of sensory cortex. Journal of cognitive neuroscience 23, 2: 460--470.
[6]
Jennifer C. McVay and Michael J. Kane. 2009. Conducting the train of thought: working memory capacity, goal neglect, and mind wandering in an executive-control task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 35, 1: 196.
[7]
Laura L. Methot and Bradley E. Huitema. 1998. Effects of signal probability on individual differences in vigilance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40, 1: 102--110.
[8]
Frederik Naujoks, Christian Purucker, and Alexandra Neukum. 2016. Secondary task engagement and vehicle automation -- Comparing the effects of different automation levels in an on-road experiment. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 38: 67--82.
[9]
Raja Parasuraman, Robert Molloy, and Indramani L. Singh. 1993. Performance Consequences of Automation-Induced "Complacency." The International Journal of Aviation Psychology.
[10]
Jonathan Smallwood, Kevin S. Brown, Christine Tipper, Barry Giesbrecht, Michael S. Franklin, Michael D. Mrazek, Jean M. Carlson, and Jonathan W. Schooler. 2011. Pupillometric Evidence for the Decoupling of Attention from Perceptual Input during Offline Thought. PLoS ONE 6, 3: e18298.
[11]
Jonathan Smallwood and Jonathan W. Schooler. 2006. The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin 132, 6: 946--958.
[12]
Joel S. Warm. 1984. Sustained attention in human performance.
[13]
Joel S. Warm, Raja Parasuraman, and Gerald Matthews. 2008. Vigilance Requires Hard Mental Work and Is Stressful. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50, 3: 433--441.
[14]
John A. Wise, Donald S. Tilden, David Abbott, Jennifer Dyck, and Patrick Guide. 1994. Managing automation in the cockpit. In International federation of airworthiness, 24th international conference. Retrieved October 29, 2015 from http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/media/cfit/volume2/pdf/pages/page5_07.pdf
Index Terms
- A Preliminary Study on the Influence of Automation over Mind Wandering Frequency in Sustained Attention
Recommendations
Do students understand the detrimental effects of mind wandering during online learning?
AbstractDo students understand the potentially detrimental effects of mind wandering as they are watching a lecture online? To answer this question, we combined methods used to assess mind wandering and metacognitive methods used to assess ...
Highlights- Participants responded to thought probes while watching an online video lecture.
Compliant activity inhibits deliberate mind wandering and accelerates thought probe responsiveness compared to compliant inactivity
ECCE '19: Proceedings of the 31st European Conference on Cognitive ErgonomicsINTRODUCTION: Mind wandering is often an interposing mental state in which a person has thoughts unrelated to the primary task they are performing. It leads to diminished performance and error risk on the primary task. Recently mind wandering being ...
On the Process of Automation Transition in Multitask Human–Machine Systems
This paper examined the effects of different forms of automation invocation, the reconfiguration of the task display when automated, and the influence of the specific modality that warned of the manual/automation transition on operator performance. ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
September 2017
214 pages
ISBN:9781450352567
DOI:10.1145/3121283
Copyright © 2017 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
In-Cooperation
- EACE: European Association for Cognitive Ergonomics
- Umeå University
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 19 September 2017
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Short-paper
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
ECCE 2017
Acceptance Rates
ECCE '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 29 of 54 submissions, 54%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 56 of 91 submissions, 62%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 95Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 12 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in