PILLAR 5 · 6 PAPERS · NO SEARCH RUN YET
Human–automation interaction
What a human supervisor needs to take over from automation, how automation erodes that capacity, and who carries responsibility when it fails.
Search string (see Methods for the per-database form)
("situation awareness" OR "out-of-the-loop" OR "out of the loop" OR "automation surprise" OR "takeover" OR "handover" OR "human-automation" OR "moral crumple zone" OR "ironies of automation") AND ("autonomous" OR "AI" OR "robot*" OR "agent*" OR "supervisory control" OR "alarm") AND ("operator" OR "supervisor" OR "trust" OR "workload" OR "explanation" OR "recovery")Included papers
| Paper | Year | Venue | Contribution | Methods | Relevance | Tags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ironies of artificial intelligence Endsley M.R. |
2023 | Ergonomics | Updates the ironies of automation for AI: capability growth still erodes human readiness to intervene. | human-factors | RQ3 seed | |
| Moral crumple zones: cautionary tales in human-robot interaction Elish M.C. |
2019 | Engaging Science Technology and Society | The nearest human absorbs blame for failures of a system they could not meaningfully control. | human-factors ethics | RQ3 RQ5 seed | |
| Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems Endsley M.R. |
1995 | Human Factors | Three-level SA model (perception comprehension projection) and the SAGAT freeze-probe method. | SA-measurement human-factors | RQ3 seed | |
| Ironies of automation Bainbridge L. |
1983 | Automatica | The more capable the automation the less practised the human who must take over when it fails. | human-factors | RQ3 seed | |
| Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance Lee J.D.; See K.A. |
2004 | Human Factors | Appropriate reliance depends on automation being understandable; over- and under-trust both fail. | human-factors | RQ3 seed | |
| A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation Parasuraman R.; Sheridan T.B.; Wickens C.D. |
2000 | IEEE Trans. SMC-A | Levels-of-automation framework describing how function allocation shifts between human and machine. | human-factors | RQ3 seed |
GAPS THIS PILLAR LEAVES OPEN
- No included paper in this pillar addresses multi-agent state
- No included paper in this pillar addresses non-generative inference
- No included paper in this pillar addresses latency / jitter aware
- No included paper in this pillar addresses time-to-irreversibility
- No included paper in this pillar addresses edge deployment
- No included paper in this pillar addresses cross-domain evaluation