ArticleHuman factors2025
Deciphering Automation Transparency: Do the Benefits of Transparency Differ Based on Whether Decision Recommendations Are Provided?
Article in Human factors, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveTo better understand automation transparency, we experimentally isolated the effects of additional information and decision recommendations on decision accuracy, decision time, perceived workload, trust, and system usability.BackgroundThe benefits of automation transparency are well documented. Previously, however, transparency (in the form of additional information) has been coupled with the provision of decision recommendations, potentially decreasing decision-maker agency and promoting automation bias. It may instead be more beneficial to provide additional information without decision recommendations to inform operators' unaided decision making.MethodsParticipants selected the optimal uninhabited vehicle (UV) to complete missions. Additional display information and decision recommendations were provided but were not always accurate. The level of additional information (no, medium, high) was manipulated between-subjects, and the provision of recommendations (absent, present) within-subjects.ResultsWhen decision recommendations were provided, participants made more accurate and faster decisions, and rated the UV system as more usable. However, recommendation provision reduced participants' ability to discriminate UV system information accuracy. Increased additional information led to faster decisions, lower perceived workload, and higher trust and usability ratings but only significantly improved decision (UV selection) accuracy when recommendations were provided.ConclusionIndividuals scrutinized additional information more when not provided decision recommendations, potentially indicating a higher expected value of processing that information. However, additional information only improved performance when accompanied by recommendations to support decisions.ApplicationIt is critical to understand the potential differential impact of, and interaction between, additional display information and decision recommendations to design effective transparent automated systems in the modern workplace.
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.