| 题名 | 自动化的错误类型、奖励方式和时间紧迫性对自动化偏差影响的研究 |
| 作者 | 王鑫 |
| 学位类别 | 硕士 |
| 答辩日期 | 2011-05 |
| 授予单位 | 中国科学院研究生院 |
| 授予地点 | 北京 |
| 导师 | 孙向红 |
| 关键词 | 人-自动化交互 自动化偏差 响应错误 忽略错误 信任 |
| 其他题名 | A study on factors affecting automation bias: automation error types, awarding rules and time urgency |
| 学位专业 | 心理学 |
| 中文摘要 | 自动化偏差描述的是操作者在使用自动化决策辅助设备时的误用现象，指的是操作者将自动化提供的错误信息作为启发式进行决策，而放弃审慎的信息加工过程所导致的后果。自动化偏差可能导致两类误操作：一、忽略错误，指的是由于自动化决策辅助设备没有对关键事件或情况进行警示，而操作者也放弃了或者没有足够的认知资源进行有效地环境监控，而错误的忽略关键事件或情况的现象。二、响应错误，指的是操作者错误的知觉现实情况，遵从自动化决策辅助设备提供的错误或者不恰当建议或者报警后进行操作的现象。忽略错误和响应错误的发生频次差异是本论文的研究核心。研究分为三个部分：实验一，操作系统的错误类型，也就是信号检测任务中的判断标准，比较虚报型系统和漏报型系统所产生的自动化偏差频次之间是否存在显著的差异。实验结果显示，漏报型系统会引起更多的自动化偏差，也就是说，忽略错误更容易发生。同时，被试对漏报型系统的信任程度和知觉效用也更高，但漏报型系统反而降低被试的反应敏感性。实验二，相比于实验一，改变了对被试的奖励方式，由每正确一次奖励一角钱，改为每错误一次扣除一角钱。结果发现，漏报型系统仍旧比虚报型系统产生更多的自动化偏差。而相比于实验一，实验二中的自动化偏差有显著降低。实验三，相比于实验一，提高任务的时间紧迫性，被试必须在1000ms内进行反应。结果表明，此种条件下，响应错误和忽略错误的发生频次无显著差异。而相比于实验一，实验三中的自动化偏差频次显著降低。 |
| 英文摘要 | Automation bias is one kind of misuse in human interaction with automated decision aids, which indicates the phenomenon that operators take information from automation as a heuristic in decision making, and give up cautious information processing. Two main kinds of error are due to automation bias: 1, Omission error, which means operators miss the signal due to over trust in automation or lack efficient environmental awareness, when automation does not alert the key object. 2, Commission error, which refers to the phenomenon that operators falsely respond to the signal or the key object, when automation makes inappropriate recommendations or false alarms. The percentage difference in frequency between omission errors and commission errors is the main issue of this thesis. Exp 1. The error types of automation (i.e. criterion of a signal detection task) were manipulated to compare whether false alarm-prone systems and miss-prone systems would induce different automation bias numbers. Results indicated that miss-prone systems induced more automation bias, i.e. omission errors were more likely to happen than commission errors. Participants’ trust in, and the perceived utility of, miss-prone systems are higher; however, miss-prone systems harmed participants’ task sensitivity more than false alarm-prone systems. Exp 2. Participants would lose 0.1 RMB in this experiment, if he / she committed an incorrect response. However, in experiment 1, the award rule is to give participants 0.1 RMB, if he / she made a correct response. Results indicated that omission errors were still more likely to happen than commission errors. And also, participants showed less automation biases than in experiment 1. Exp 3. Compared to experiment 1, time urgency was manipulated. Participants had to respond within 1000ms. Results showed that, there was no difference between omission errors and commission errors in this experiment. And also, participants made less automation biases than in experiment 1. |
| 语种 | 中文 |
| 学科主题 | 应用心理学 |
| 内容类型 | 学位论文 |
| 源URL | [http://ir.psych.ac.cn/handle/311026/20405]  |
| 专题 | 心理研究所_社会与工程心理学研究室 |
| 作者单位 | 中国科学院心理研究所 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | 王鑫. 自动化的错误类型、奖励方式和时间紧迫性对自动化偏差影响的研究[D]. 北京. 中国科学院研究生院. 2011. |
| 个性服务 |
| 查看访问统计 |
| 相关权益政策 |
| 暂无数据 |
| 收藏/分享 |
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
修改评论