Search

The temporal dynamics of the spatial scaling of attention during visual search were examined by recording event-related potentials (ERPs). A total of 16 young participants performed a search task in which the search array was preceded by valid cues that varied in size and hence in precision of target localization. The effects of cue size on short-latency (P1 and N1) ERP components, and the time course of these effects with variation in cue-target stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), were examined. Reaction time (RT) to discriminate a target was prolonged as cue size increased. The amplitudes of the posterior P1 and N1 components of the ERP evoked by the search array were affected in opposite ways by the size of the precue: P1 amplitude increased whereas N1 amplitude decreased as cue size increased, particularly following the shortest SOA. The results show that when top-down information about the region to be searched is less precise (larger cues), RT is slowed and the neural generators of P1 become more active, reflecting the additional computations required in changing the spatial scale of attention to the appropriate element size to facilitate target discrimination. In contrast, the decrease in N1 amplitude with cue size may reflect a broadening of the spatial gradient of attention. The results provide electrophysiological evidence that changes in the spatial scale of attention modulate neural activity in early visual cortical areas and activate at least two temporally overlapping component processes during visual search.

A simple analytical criterion is provided for deciding whether a human or automation is best for a failure detection task. The method is based on expected-value decision theory in much the same way as is signal detection. It requires specification of the probabilities of misses (false negatives) and false alarms (false positives) for both human and automation being considered, as well as factors independent of the choice--namely, costs and benefits of incorrect and correct decisions as well as the prior probability of failure. The method can also serve as a basis for comparing different modes of automation. Some limiting cases of application are discussed, as are some decision criteria other than expected value. Actual or potential applications include the design and evaluation of any system in which either humans or automation are being considered.

Operators can be poor monitors of automation if they are engaged concurrently in other tasks. However, in previous studies of this phenomenon the automated task was always presented in the periphery, away from the primary manual tasks that were centrally displayed. In this study we examined whether centrally locating an automated task would boost monitoring performance during a flight-simulation task consisting of system monitoring, tracking and fuel resource management sub-tasks. Twelve nonpilot subjects were required to perform the tracking and fuel management tasks manually while watching the automated system monitoring task for occasional failures. The automation reliability was constant at 87.5% for six subjects and variable (alternating between 87.5% and 56.25%) for the other six subjects. Each subject completed four 30 min sessions over a period of 2 days. In each automation reliability condition the automation routine was disabled for the last 20 min of the fourth session in order to simulate catastrophic automation failure (0 % reliability). Monitoring for automation failure was inefficient when automation reliability was constant but not when it varied over time, replicating previous results. Furthermore, there was no evidence of resource or speed accuracy trade-off between tasks. Thus, automation-induced failures of monitoring cannot be prevented by centrally locating the automated task.

The effects of adaptive task allocation on monitoring for automation failure during multitask flight simulation were examined. Participants monitored an automated engine status task while simultaneously performing tracking and fuel management tasks over three 30-min sessions. Two methods of adaptive task allocation, both involving temporary return of the automated engine status task to the human operator ("human control"), were examined as a possible countermeasure to monitoring inefficiency. For the model-based adaptive group, the engine status task was allocated to all participants in the middle of the second session for 10 min, following which it was again returned to automation control. The same occurred for the performance-based adaptive group, but only if an individual participant's monitoring performance up to that point did not meet a specified criterion. For the nonadaptive control groups, the engine status task remained automated throughout the experiment. All groups had low probabilities of detection of automation failures for the first 40 min spent with automation. However, following the 10-min intervening period of human control, both adaptive groups detected significantly more automation failures during the subsequent blocks under automation control. The results show that adaptive task allocation can enhance monitoring of automated systems. Both model-based and performance-based allocation improved monitoring of automation. Implications for the design of automated systems are discussed.

The feasibility of pupillometry as an indicator for assessing operator workload during manual tracking was studied. The mean and maximum pupillary responses of 12 subjects performing tracking tasks with three levels of difficulty (bandwidth of the forcing function were 0.15, 0.30 and 0.50 Hz respectively) were analysed. The results showed that pupillary dilation increased significantly as a function of the tracking difficulty which was reflected by the significant increase of tracking error (RMS). The present study supplies additional evidence that pupillary response is a sensitive and reliable index which may serve as an indicator for assessing operator workload in man-machine systems.