Effects of automation stage on alerted-monitor performance and operator perception with and without concurrent task demands

Alerted-monitor systems may not be perfectly reliable and are apt to generate false alarms, risking automation misuse. The possibility and severity of automation misuse can be affected by the automation stage of the alerted-monitor task and the presence of concurrent task demands, especially when there is more than one unpredictable false alarm throughout the entire task. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of the automation stage on alerted-monitor performance and operator perception with/without concurrent task demands, aiming to select the appropriate automation stage to mitigate false alarm impacts. Participants performed an alerted-monitor task under two automation stages (decision-making and action implementation) with/without a concurrent manual tracking task. Results showed that action-implementation automation consistently enhanced efficiency (e.g., reduced correct response time to false alarms, lower workload) and trust regardless of concurrent task demands, while uniquely improving accuracy in distinguishing true and false alarms only under concurrent task demands. In contrast, decision-making automation increased situational awareness exclusively in the absence of concurrent task demands. These findings suggest that action-implementation automation should be prioritized in the presence of concurrent task demands, as it mitigates false alarm effects, evidenced by its improved accuracy in distinguishing true and false alarms. In contrast, decision-making automation may be favored in contexts without concurrent task demands, as it enhances situational awareness, though its direct impact on mitigating false alarms is limited.