These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
242 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26360226)
1. System reliability, performance and trust in adaptable automation. Chavaillaz A; Wastell D; Sauer J Appl Ergon; 2016 Jan; 52():333-42. PubMed ID: 26360226 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effects of extended lay-off periods on performance and operator trust under adaptable automation. Chavaillaz A; Wastell D; Sauer J Appl Ergon; 2016 Mar; 53 Pt A():241-51. PubMed ID: 26603139 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The use of adaptable automation: Effects of extended skill lay-off and changes in system reliability. Sauer J; Chavaillaz A Appl Ergon; 2017 Jan; 58():471-481. PubMed ID: 27633244 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Operator adaptation to changes in system reliability under adaptable automation. Chavaillaz A; Sauer J Ergonomics; 2017 Sep; 60(9):1261-1272. PubMed ID: 27875937 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Automation trust and attention allocation in multitasking workspace. Karpinsky ND; Chancey ET; Palmer DB; Yamani Y Appl Ergon; 2018 Jul; 70():194-201. PubMed ID: 29866311 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Designing automation for complex work environments under different levels of stress. Sauer J; Nickel P; Wastell D Appl Ergon; 2013 Jan; 44(1):119-27. PubMed ID: 22726906 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effects of information source, pedigree, and reliability on operator interaction with decision support systems. Madhavan P; Wiegmann DA Hum Factors; 2007 Oct; 49(5):773-85. PubMed ID: 17915596 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Experience of automation failures in training: effects on trust, automation bias, complacency and performance. Sauer J; Chavaillaz A; Wastell D Ergonomics; 2016 Jun; 59(6):767-80. PubMed ID: 26374396 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Muir BM; Moray N Ergonomics; 1996 Mar; 39(3):429-60. PubMed ID: 8849495 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Individual differences in the calibration of trust in automation. Pop VL; Shrewsbury A; Durso FT Hum Factors; 2015 Jun; 57(4):545-56. PubMed ID: 25977317 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Human-automation interaction for multiple robot control: the effect of varying automation assistance and individual differences on operator performance. Wright JL; Chen JYC; Barnes MJ Ergonomics; 2018 Aug; 61(8):1033-1045. PubMed ID: 29451105 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Displaying contextual information reduces the costs of imperfect decision automation in rapid retasking of ISR assets. Rovira E; Cross A; Leitch E; Bonaceto C Hum Factors; 2014 Sep; 56(6):1036-49. PubMed ID: 25277015 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Endsley MR; Kaber DB Ergonomics; 1999 Mar; 42(3):462-92. PubMed ID: 10048306 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Detecting automation failures in a simulated supervisory control environment. Foroughi CK; Sibley C; Brown NL; Rovira E; Pak R; Coyne JT Ergonomics; 2019 Sep; 62(9):1150-1161. PubMed ID: 31179874 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Impact of automated decision aids on performance, operator behaviour and workload in a simulated supervisory control task. Röttger S; Bali K; Manzey D Ergonomics; 2009 May; 52(5):512-23. PubMed ID: 19296323 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The role of human-automation consensus in multiple unmanned vehicle scheduling. Cummings ML; Clare A; Hart C Hum Factors; 2010 Feb; 52(1):17-27. PubMed ID: 20653222 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The Role of Trust as a Mediator Between System Characteristics and Response Behaviors. Chancey ET; Bliss JP; Proaps AB; Madhavan P Hum Factors; 2015 Sep; 57(6):947-58. PubMed ID: 25917611 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of a brain-based adaptive system and a manual adaptable system for invoking automation. Bailey NR; Scerbo MW; Freeman FG; Mikulka PJ; Scott LA Hum Factors; 2006; 48(4):693-709. PubMed ID: 17240718 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Automation in visual inspection tasks: X-ray luggage screening supported by a system of direct, indirect or adaptable cueing with low and high system reliability. Chavaillaz A; Schwaninger A; Michel S; Sauer J Ergonomics; 2018 Oct; 61(10):1395-1408. PubMed ID: 29799358 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]