ArticleScientific reports2024
A conceptual framework for automation disengagements.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A better understanding of automation disengagements can lead to improved safety and efficiency of automated systems. This study investigates the factors contributing to automation disengagements initiated by human operators and the automation itself by analyzing semi-structured interviews with 103 users of Tesla's Autopilot and FSD Beta. The factors leading to automation disengagements are represented by categories. In total, we identified five main categories, and thirty-five subcategories. The main categories include human operator states (5), human operator's perception of the automation (17), human operator's perception of other humans (3), the automation's perception of the human operator (3), and the automation incapability in the environment (7). Human operators disengaged the automation when they anticipated failure, observed unnatural or unwanted automation behavior (e.g., erratic steering, running red lights), or believed the automation is not capable to operate safely in certain environments (e.g., inclement weather, non-standard roads). Negative experiences of human operators, such as frustration, unsafe feelings, and distrust represent some of the adverse human operate states leading to automation disengagements initiated by human operators. The automation, in turn, monitored human operators and disengaged itself if it detected insufficient vigilance or speed rule violations by human operators. Moreover, human operators can be influenced by the reactions of passengers and other road users, leading them to disengage the automation if they sensed discomfort, anger, or embarrassment due to the automation's actions. The results of the analysis are synthesized into a conceptual framework for automation disengagements, borrowing ideas from the human factor's literature and control theory. This research offers insights into the factors contributing to automation disengagements, and highlights not only the concerns of human operators but also the social aspects of this phenomenon. The findings provide information on potential edge cases of automated vehicle technology, which may help to enhance the safety and efficiency of such systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.