Benchmarking Automation-Aided Signal Detection
Human operators often perform signal detection tasks with assistance from automated aids. Unfortunately, users tend to disuse aids that are less than perfectly accurate (Parasuraman & Riley, 1997), disregarding the aids' advice even when it might be helpful. To facilitate cost-benefit analyses of automated signal detection aids, we benchmarked the performance of human-automation teams against the predictions of various models of information integration. Participants performed a binary signal detection task, with and without assistance from an automated aid. Each trial, the aid provided the participant a binary judgment along with an estimate of certainty. Models chosen for comparison varied from perfectly efficient to highly inefficient. Even with an automated aid of fairly high sensitivity (d' = 3), performance of the human-automation teams was poor, approaching the predictions of the least efficient comparison models, and efficiency of the human-automation teams was substantially lower than that achieved by pairs of human collaborators. Data indicate strong automation disuse, and provide guidance for estimating the benefits of automated detection aids.