The Impact of Lower Degree Automation Reliability on Higher Degree Automation Failure Detection in Simulated Air Traffic Control

ObjectiveTo determine how lower degree of automation (DOA) reliability impacts human response to a single higher-DOA failure in simulated air traffic control conflict detection.BackgroundHigher-DOA systems apply higher levels of automation to later stages of human information processing. Higher-DOA typically results in better routine performance, and lower-DOA with better automation failure response. If both are provided and lower-DOA is reliable, it could support higher DOA failure detection.MethodParticipants (<i>N</i> = 192) received a combination of lower-DOA and/or higher-DOA. Lower-DOA highlighted aircraft conflicts and near-misses, leaving participants to manually resolve conflicts. Higher-DOA resolved conflicts. Automation failed once. Participants were provided one of four types of automation: lower-DOA, where lower-DOA failed (L_F); higher-DOA, where higher-DOA failed (H_F); both lower- and higher-DOA, where only higher-DOA failed (LH_F); or both lower- and higher-DOA, where both failed (L_FH_F).ResultsWhen only the higher-DOA component of combined lower- and higher-DOA failed (LH_F), participants detected the automation failure 23.6s faster and more accurately (miss rate = -.08) compared to higher-DOA only (H_F). However, more participants missed the automation failure when lower-DOA failed (L_F = +.42; L_FH_F = +.15), compared to the H_F condition.ConclusionsReliable lower-DOA can support higher DOA failure detection when both are presented. However, poorer automation failure detection with lower-DOA failure suggests participants over-relied on aircraft highlighting to direct attention to potential conflicts.ApplicationsProviding both lower- and higher-DOA together could be beneficial when higher-DOA fails but lower-DOA remains reliable, but conversely, detrimental if lower-DOA also fails.