ArticleHuman factors2026
How Multi-Tasking Ability Impacts Performance, Workload, Situation Awareness, Stress and Trust with Simulated Imperfect Automation.
Article in Human factors, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveThis study investigated whether individual differences in multi-tasking ability (MTa) modulate the benefit and cost of supervising imperfect automation on performance, workload, situation awareness, stress, and trust in simulated air traffic control (ATC).BackgroundAutomation is rarely perfectly reliable, and automation failures can have significant detrimental effects. Prior work established that MTa can modulate the benefit of perfectly reliable automation. However, it is unknown whether MTa influences the cost of supervising imperfect automation.MethodsMTa was indexed using a latent factor from three cognitive tasks completed by 113 undergraduate students. Participants completed two ATC blocks: one without automation (manual) and one with automated assistance for accepting incoming aircraft, handing-off outgoing aircraft, and conflict detection (violations of minimum separation). Conflict detection automation was perfectly reliable. Automation highlighting aircraft needing acceptance and hand-off was imperfect, missing 30% of events (the "unreliable" trials).ResultsLower-MTa participants obtained greater performance benefits to aircraft hand-off from reliable-automation but suffered greater costs from unreliable automation compared to manual hand-off, relative to higher-MTa participants. Situation awareness was improved by automation provision, and workload reduced, although MTa did not vary these effects. Stress reduction with automation, compared to manual, was greater for lower-MTa compared to higher-MTa participants. Higher-MTa participants calibrated trust across the different reliability of ATC tasks more effectively.ConclusionMTa can lead to differentiated effects of imperfect automation on aircraft hand-off, perceived stress and trust.ApplicationMTa may warrant consideration in personnel hiring and role selection for work contexts where automation reliability is volatile.
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.