Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://dx.doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-10801
For citation please use:
Main Title: Absence of DOA Effect but No Proper Test of the Lumberjack Effect: A Reply to Jamieson and Skraaning (2019)
Author(s): Wickens, Christopher D.
Onnasch, Linda
Sebok, Angelina
Manzey, Dietrich
Type: Article
URI: https://depositonce.tu-berlin.de/handle/11303/11910
http://dx.doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-10801
License: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
Abstract: Objective: The aim was to evaluate the relevance of the critique offered by Jamieson and Skraaning (2019) regarding the applicability of the lumberjack effect of human–automation interaction to complex real-world settings. Background: The lumberjack effect, based upon a meta-analysis, identifies the consequences of a higher degree of automation—to improve performance and reduce workload—when automation functions as intended, but to degrade performance more, as mediated by a loss of situation awareness (SA) when automation fails. Jamieson and Skraaning provide data from a process control scenario that they assert contradicts the effect. Approach: We analyzed key aspects of their simulation, measures, and results which we argue limit the strength of their conclusion that the lumberjack effect is not applicable to complex real-world systems. Results: Our analysis revealed limits in their inappropriate choice of automation, the lack of a routine performance measure, support for the lumberjack effect that was actually provided by subjective measures of the operators, an inappropriate assessment of SA, and a possible limitation of statistical power. Conclusion: We regard these limitations as reasons to temper the strong conclusions drawn by the authors, of no applicability of the lumberjack effect to complex environments. Their findings should be used as an impetus for conducting further research on human–automation interaction in these domains. Applications: The collective findings of both Jamieson and Skraaning and our study are applicable to system designers and users in deciding upon the appropriate level of automation to deploy.
Subject(s): human–automation interaction
level of automation
situation awareness
complex systems
failure response
Issue Date: 28-Jan-2020
Date Available: 12-Nov-2020
Language Code: en
DDC Class: 610 Medizin und Gesundheit
Journal Title: Human Factors: The Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Publisher: SAGE
Volume: 62
Issue: 4
Publisher DOI: 10.1177/0018720820901957
Page Start: 530
Page End: 534
EISSN: 1547-8181
ISSN: 0018-7208
Notes: This publication is with permission of the rights owner freely accessible due to an Alliance licence and a national licence (funded by the DFG, German Research Foundation) respectively.
Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.
TU Affiliation(s): Fak. 5 Verkehrs- und Maschinensysteme » Inst. Psychologie und Arbeitswissenschaft » FG Arbeits-, Ingenieur- und Organisationspsychologie
Appears in Collections:Technische Universität Berlin » Publications

Files in This Item:
10.1177_0018720820901957.pdf
Format: Adobe PDF | Size: 290.04 kB
DownloadShow Preview
Thumbnail

Item Export Bar

Items in DepositOnce are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.