责备
自动化
现状
风险分析(工程)
人为因素与人体工程学
工作(物理)
领域(数学分析)
期限(时间)
心理干预
合法化
公共关系
计算机安全
工程伦理学
毒物控制
计算机科学
业务
工程类
心理学
政治学
法学
社会心理学
政治
医学
机械工程
数学分析
物理
数学
环境卫生
量子力学
精神科
出处
期刊:Ergonomics
[Informa]
日期:2023-05-12
卷期号:66 (11): 1730-1749
被引量:4
标识
DOI:10.1080/00140139.2023.2210793
摘要
Given that automation complacency, a hitherto controversial concept, is already used to blame and punish human drivers in current accident investigations and courts, it is essential to map complacency research in driving automation and determine whether current research can support its legitimate usage in these practical fields. Here, we reviewed its status quo in the domain and conducted a thematic analysis. We then discussed five fundamental challenges that might undermine its scientific legitimation: conceptual confusion exists in whether it is an individual versus systems problem; uncertainties exist in current evidence of complacency; valid measures specific to complacency are lacking; short-term laboratory experiments cannot address the long-term nature of complacency and thus their findings may lack external validity; and no effective interventions directly target complacency prevention. The Human Factors/Ergonomics community has a responsibility to minimise its usage and defend human drivers who rely on automation that is far from perfect.Practitioner summary: Human drivers are accused of complacency and overreliance on driving automation in accident investigations and courts. Our review work shows that current academic research in the driving automation domain cannot support its legitimate usage in these practical fields. Its misuse will create a new form of consumer harms.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI