Monitoring an Automated System for a Single Failure: Vigilance and Task Complexity Effects

TLDR

The study examined how task complexity and time influence monitoring of a single automation failure during a complex flight simulation task. Participants were assigned to a multicomplex group performing all three simulation tasks simultaneously, a single‑complex group monitoring only, or a simple visual vigilance group. Monitoring a single automation failure was less accurate in the multicomplex task than when monitoring engine malfunctions under manual control, and detection rates declined over time for the simple and multicomplex tasks but remained stable for the single‑complex task, confirming that automation monitoring inefficiency persists even with a single failure.

Abstract

The present study examined the effects of task complexity and time on task on the monitoring of a single automation failure during performance of a complex flight simulation task involving tracking, fuel management, and engine-status monitoring. Two groups of participants performed either all three flight simulation tasks simultaneously (multicomplex task) or the monitoring task alone (single-complex task); a third group performed a simple visual vigilance task (simple task). For the multicomplex task, monitoring for a single failure of automation control was poorer than when participants monitored engine malfunctions under manual control. Furthermore, more participants detected the automation failure in the first 10 min of a 30-min session than in the last 10 min of the session, for both the simple and the multicomplex task. Participants in the single-complex condition detected the automation failure equally well in both periods. The results support previous findings of inefficiency in monitoring automation and show that automation-related monitoring inefficiency occurs even when there is a single automation failure. Implications for theories of vigilance and automation design are discussed.