Dataset Information

Automation Expectation Mismatch: Incorrect Prediction Despite Eyes on Threat and Hands on Wheel.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to understand how to secure driver supervision engagement and conflict intervention performance while using highly reliable (but not perfect) automation. BACKGROUND:Securing driver engagement-by mitigating irony of automation (i.e., the better the automation, the less attention drivers will pay to traffic and the system, and the less capable they will be to resume control) and by communicating system limitations to avoid mental model misconceptions-is a major challenge in the human factors literature. METHOD:One hundred six drivers participated in three test-track experiments in which we studied driver intervention response to conflicts after driving highly reliable but supervised automation. After 30 min, a conflict occurred wherein the lead vehicle cut out of lane to reveal a conflict object in the form of either a stationary car or a garbage bag. RESULTS:Supervision reminders effectively maintained drivers' eyes on path and hands on wheel. However, neither these reminders nor explicit instructions on system limitations and supervision responsibilities prevented 28% (21/76) of drivers from crashing with their eyes on the conflict object (car or bag). CONCLUSION:The results uncover the important role of expectation mismatches, showing that a key component of driver engagement is cognitive (understanding the need for action), rather than purely visual (looking at the threat), or having hands on wheel. APPLICATION:Automation needs to be designed either so that it does not rely on the driver or so that the driver unmistakably understands that it is an assistance system that needs an active driver to lead and share control.

SUBMITTER: Victor TW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6207994 | biostudies-other | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Automation Expectation Mismatch: Incorrect Prediction Despite Eyes on Threat and Hands on Wheel.

Victor Trent W TW Tivesten Emma E Gustavsson Pär P Johansson Joel J Sangberg Fredrik F Ljung Aust Mikael M

Human factors 20180810 8

<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this study was to understand how to secure driver supervision engagement and conflict intervention performance while using highly reliable (but not perfect) automation.<h4>Background</h4>Securing driver engagement-by mitigating irony of automation (i.e., the better the automation, the less attention drivers will pay to traffic and the system, and the less capable they will be to resume control) and by communicating system limitations to avoid mental model misconcepti ...[more]

PMID: 30096002

Similar Datasets

Project description:Affective states are known to influence behavior and cognitive processes. To assess mood (moderately long-term affective states), the cognitive judgment bias test was developed and has been widely used in various animal species. However, little is known about how mood changes, how mood can be experimentally manipulated, and how mood then feeds back into cognitive judgment. A recent theory argues that mood reflects the cumulative impact of differences between obtained outcomes and expectations. Here expectations refer to an established context. Situations in which an established context fails to match an outcome are then perceived as mismatches of expectation and outcome. We take advantage of the large number of studies published on non-verbal cognitive bias tests in recent years (95 studies with a total of 162 independent tests) to test whether cumulative mismatch could indeed have led to the observed mood changes. Based on a criteria list, we assessed whether mismatch had occurred with the experimental procedure used to induce mood (mood induction mismatch), or in the context of the non-verbal cognitive bias procedure (testing mismatch). For the mood induction mismatch, we scored the mismatch between the subjects' potential expectations and the manipulations conducted for inducing mood whereas, for the testing mismatch, we scored mismatches that may have occurred during the actual testing. We then investigated whether these two types of mismatch can predict the actual outcome of the cognitive bias study. The present evaluation shows that mood induction mismatch cannot well predict the success of a cognitive bias test. On the other hand, testing mismatch can modulate or even inverse the expected outcome. We think, cognitive bias studies should more specifically aim at creating expectation mismatch while inducing mood states to test the cumulative mismatch theory more properly. Furthermore, testing mismatch should be avoided as much as possible because it can reverse the affective state of animals as measured in a cognitive judgment bias paradigm.

Project description:Modifying patients' expectations by exposing them to expectation violation situations (thus maximizing the difference between the expected and the actual situational outcome) is proposed to be a crucial mechanism for therapeutic success for a variety of different mental disorders. However, clinical observations suggest that patients often maintain their expectations regardless of experiences contradicting their expectations. It remains unclear which information processing mechanisms lead to modification or persistence of patients' expectations. Insight in the processing could be provided by Neuroimaging studies investigating prediction error (PE, i.e., neuronal reactions to non-expected stimuli). Two methods are often used to investigate the PE: (1) paradigms, in which participants passively observe PEs ("passive" paradigms) and (2) paradigms, which encourage a behavioral adaptation following a PE ("active" paradigms). These paradigms are similar to the methods used to induce expectation violations in clinical settings: (1) the confrontation with an expectation violation situation and (2) an enhanced confrontation in which the patient actively challenges his expectation. We used this similarity to gain insight in the different neuronal processing of the two PE paradigms. We performed a meta-analysis contrasting neuronal activity of PE paradigms encouraging a behavioral adaptation following a PE and paradigms enforcing passiveness following a PE. We found more neuronal activity in the striatum, the insula and the fusiform gyrus in studies encouraging behavioral adaptation following a PE. Due to the involvement of reward assessment and avoidance learning associated with the striatum and the insula we propose that the deliberate execution of action alternatives following a PE is associated with the integration of new information into previously existing expectations, therefore leading to an expectation change. While further research is needed to directly assess expectations of participants, this study provides new insights into the information processing mechanisms following an expectation violation.

Project description:Immunoglobulin class-switch recombination (CSR) and somatic hypermutations (SHMs) are prerequisites for antibody and immunoglobulin receptor maturation and adaptive immune diversity. The mismatch repair (MMR) machinery, consisting of homologs of MutSα, MutLα, and MutSβ (MSH2/MSH6, MLH1/PMS2, and MSH2/MSH3, respectively) and other proteins, is involved in CSR, primarily acting as a backup for nonhomologous end-joining repair of activation-induced cytidine deaminase-induced DNA mismatches and, furthermore, in addition to error-prone polymerases, in the repair of SHM-induced DNA breaks. A varying degree of antibody formation defect, from IgA or selective IgG subclass deficiency to common variable immunodeficiency and hyper-IgM syndrome, has been detected in a small number of patients with constitutional mismatch repair deficiency (CMMRD) due to biallelic loss-of-function mutations in one of the MMR genes (PMS2, MSH6, MLH1, or MSH2). To elucidate the clinical relevance of a presumed primary immunodeficiency (PID) in CMMRD, we systematically collected clinical history and laboratory data of a cohort of 15 consecutive, unrelated patients (10 not previously reported) with homozygous/compound heterozygous mutations in PMS2 (n = 8), MSH6 (n = 5), and MLH1 (n = 2), most of whom manifested with typical malignancies during childhood. Detailed descriptions of their genotypes, phenotypes, and family histories are provided. Importantly, none of the patients showed any clinical warning signs of PID (infections, immune dysregulation, inflammation, failure to thrive, etc.). Furthermore, we could not detect uniform or specific patterns of laboratory abnormalities. The concentration of IgM was increased in 3 out of 12, reduced in 3 out of 12, and normal in 6 out of 12 patients, while concentrations of IgG and IgG subclasses, except IgG4, and of IgA, and specific antibody formation were normal in most. Class-switched B memory cells were reduced in 5 out of 12 patients, and in 9 out of 12 also the CD38hiIgM- plasmablasts were reduced. Furthermore, results of next generation sequencing-based analyses of antigen-selected B-cell receptor rearrangements showed a significantly reduced frequency of SHM and an increased number of rearranged immunoglobulin heavy chain (IGH) transcripts that use IGHG3, IGHG1, and IGHA1 subclasses. T cell subsets and receptor repertoires were unaffected. Together, neither clinical nor routine immunological laboratory parameters were consistently suggestive of PID in these CMMRD patients, but previously shown abnormalities in SHM and rearranged heavy chain transcripts were confirmed.

Dataset Information

Automation Expectation Mismatch: Incorrect Prediction Despite Eyes on Threat and Hands on Wheel.

Publications

Automation Expectation Mismatch: Incorrect Prediction Despite Eyes on Threat and Hands on Wheel.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets