Automation bias and verification complexity: a systematic review

David Lyell · Enrico W Coiera

447 citations0/0 files storedJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Human-Automation Interaction and Safety Electronic Health Records Systems Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: While potentially reducing decision errors, decision support systems can introduce new types of errors. Automation bias (AB) happens when users become overreliant on decision support, which reduces vigilance in information seeking and processing. Most research originates from the human factors literature, where the prevailing view is that AB occurs only in multitasking environments. OBJECTIVES: This review seeks to compare the human factors and health care literature, focusing on the apparent association of AB with multitasking and task complexity. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, Medline, Compendex, Inspec, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Business Source Premiere from 1983 to 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Evaluation studies where task execution was assisted by automation and resulted in errors were included. Participants needed to be able to verify automation correctness and perform the task manually. METHODS: Tasks were identified and grouped. Task and automation type and presence of multitasking were noted. Each task was rated for its verification complexity. RESULTS: Of 890 papers identified, 40 met the inclusion criteria; 6 were in health care. Contrary to the prevailing human factors view, AB was found in single tasks, typically involving diagnosis rather than monitoring, and with high verification complexity. LIMITATIONS: The literature is fragmented, with large discrepancies in how AB is reported. Few studies reported the statistical significance of AB compared to a control condition. CONCLUSION: AB appears to be associated with the degree of cognitive load experienced in decision tasks, and appears to not be uniquely associated with multitasking. Strategies to minimize AB might focus on cognitive load reduction.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 447 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement 2011The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials 2011Cognitive Load Theory 2010Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration 2011Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators 1999Does automation bias decision-making?

Cited by

2025Exploring automation bias in human–AI collaboration: a review and implications for explainable AI 2023‘Just like I thought’: Street‐level bureaucrats trust AI recommendations if they confirm their professional judgment 2021How should intelligent agents apologize to restore trust? Interaction effects between anthropomorphism and apology attribution on trust repair 2021Not all biases are bad: equitable and inequitable biases in machine learning and radiology 2021

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.