Inhibitory Cognitive Control Allows Automated Advice to Improve Accuracy While Minimizing Misuse. (November 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Strickland, Luke; Heathcote, Andrew; Bowden, Vanessa K.; Boag, Russell J.; Wilson, Michael David; Khan, Samha; Loft, Shayne
• Is Part Of: Psychological science. Volume 32:Number 11(2021)
• Page Start: 1768
• Page End: 1781
• Publication Date: 2021-11
• Subjects: decision making -- automation -- evidence-accumulation model -- linear ballistic accumulator -- inhibition -- cognitive control -- open data; Psychology -- Periodicals; 150.5
• DOI: 10.1177/09567976211012676
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0956-7976

Abstract

Humans increasingly use automated decision aids. However, environmental uncertainty means that automated advice can be incorrect, creating the potential for humans to act on incorrect advice or to disregard correct advice. We present a quantitative model of the cognitive process by which humans use automation when deciding whether aircraft would violate requirements for minimum separation. The model closely fitted the performance of 24 participants, who each made 2, 400 conflict-detection decisions (conflict vs. nonconflict), either manually (with no assistance) or with the assistance of 90% reliable automation. When the decision aid was correct, conflict-detection accuracy improved, but when the decision aid was incorrect, accuracy and response time were impaired. The model indicated that participants integrated advice into their decision process by inhibiting evidence accumulation toward the task response that was incongruent with that advice, thereby ensuring that decisions could not be made solely on automated advice without first sampling information from the task environment.