Absence of DOA Effect but No Proper Test of the Lumberjack Effect: A Reply to Jamieson and Skraaning (2019)

dc.contributor.authorWickens, Christopher D.
dc.contributor.authorOnnasch, Linda
dc.contributor.authorSebok, Angelina
dc.contributor.authorManzey, Dietrich
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-12T10:03:01Z
dc.date.available2020-11-12T10:03:01Z
dc.date.issued2020-01-28
dc.date.updated2020-05-25T03:12:47Z
dc.descriptionThis 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.en
dc.descriptionDieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.de
dc.description.abstractObjective: 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.en
dc.identifier.eissn1547-8181
dc.identifier.issn0018-7208
dc.identifier.urihttps://depositonce.tu-berlin.de/handle/11303/11910
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-10801
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.subject.ddc610 Medizin und Gesundheitde
dc.subject.otherhuman–automation interactionen
dc.subject.otherlevel of automationen
dc.subject.othersituation awarenessen
dc.subject.othercomplex systemsen
dc.subject.otherfailure responseen
dc.titleAbsence of DOA Effect but No Proper Test of the Lumberjack Effect: A Reply to Jamieson and Skraaning (2019)en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionen
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi10.1177/0018720820901957en
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.issue4en
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitleHuman Factors: The Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics Societyen
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.originalpublishernameSAGEen
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.originalpublisherplaceLondonen
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pageend534en
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pagestart530en
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume62en
tub.accessrights.dnbdomain*
tub.affiliationFak. 5 Verkehrs- und Maschinensysteme>Inst. Psychologie und Arbeitswissenschaft>FG Arbeits-, Ingenieur- und Organisationspsychologiede
tub.affiliation.facultyFak. 5 Verkehrs- und Maschinensystemede
tub.affiliation.groupFG Arbeits-, Ingenieur- und Organisationspsychologiede
tub.affiliation.instituteInst. Psychologie und Arbeitswissenschaftde
tub.publisher.universityorinstitutionTechnische Universität Berlinen
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading…
Thumbnail Image
Name:
10.1177_0018720820901957.pdf
Size:
290.04 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Collections