@article{ref1,
title="Misuse of human and automated decision aids in a soldier detection task",
journal="Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society annual meeting",
year="2006",
author="Dzindolet, Mary T. and Pierce, Linda G. and Beck, Hall P.",
volume="50",
number="17",
pages="1936-1940",
abstract="Providing human operators with automated decision aids does not always improve performance. In this study, 24 students viewed terrain slides, half of which included a camouflaged soldier. After viewing each slide, participants could view the decision reached by a human or automated aid, or continue without the help of an aid. Some of the participants were led to believe their aids were experts; others were not. Significantly more participants showed a preference to view human rather than automated aid decisions. However, participants were as likely to misuse an automated aid as they were a human aid. These biases existed regardless of the perceived expertise of the aids. In addition, results of a linguistic analysis of open-ended descriptions of automated and human aids suggest human operators view automated and human aids differently and have implications for training and system development.<p /><p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="2169-5067",
doi="10.1177/154193120605001747",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/154193120605001747"
}