Automation Surprises¶
Sarter, N. B., Woods, & Billings, C. E. (1997). Automation Surprises. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Operator-Vigilance Dependency
- Aviation — pilot monitoring on highly automated flight decks, where the rare residual class (automation-mode confusion, sensor failure) is exactly where unaided vigilance fails (AF447, Asiana 214)
Supported in partVerified against a saved copy of the source
“awareness result in “automation surprises.” These automation surprises have been observed and reported”
- Aviation — pilot monitoring on highly automated flight decks, where the rare residual class (automation-mode confusion, sensor failure) is exactly where unaided vigilance fails (AF447, Asiana 214)
Mechanisms¶
- Side-by-Side Legacy / Native Mode
- Its failure mode is the support burden and mode confusion of running two systems at once: users lose track of which mode they are in or which is authoritative, and act on the wrong one at the worst moment — the classic automation surprise.
This sourceIdentifies loss of mode awareness as a cause of automation surprises.
- Its failure mode is the support burden and mode confusion of running two systems at once: users lose track of which mode they are in or which is authoritative, and act on the wrong one at the worst moment — the classic automation surprise.
- Simulation-Based Correction
- It is the standard antidote to automation surprises
This sourceExplains automation surprises as mismatches between operators’ expectations and actual automation behavior.
- It is the standard antidote to automation surprises
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 3 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.
Registry ID ref:efb5708639b9 · see in the full table