From trust in automation to decision neuroscience: Applying cognitive neuroscience methods to understand and improve interaction decisions involved in human automation interaction

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Volumn 10, Issue , 2016, Pages

  Drnec, Kim ^a   Marathe, Amar R ^a   Lukos, Jamie R ^b   Metcalfe, Jason S ^a  

^a U S ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

^b LAC+USC Medical Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making; Human automation interaction; Interaction decisions; Neuroergonomics; Trust in automation

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; JOINT; TRUST;

EID: 84978312741     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16625161     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00290     Document Type: Review

References (116)

1. Bagheri, N., and Jamieson, G. A.. (2004). '‘Considering subjective trust and monitoring behavior in assessing automation-induced complacency,'' in Human Performance, Situation Awareness and Automation: Current Research and Trends, eds D. A. Vicenzi, M. Moulousa, and P. A. Hancock (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), 54-59.
2. Bahner, J. E., Hüper, A.-D., and Manzey, D. (2008). Misuse of automated decision aids: complacency, automation bias and the impact of training experience. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 66, 688-699. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.06.001
3. Basten, U., Biele, G., Heekeren, H. R., and Fiebach, C. J. (2010). How the brain integrates costs and benefits during decision making. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 107, 21767-21772. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908104107
4. Biros, D., Daly, M., and Gunsch, G. (2004). The influence of task load and automation trust on deception detection. Group Decis. Negot. 13, 173-189. doi: 10.1023/b:grup.0000021840.85686.57
5. Bliss, J. P., Gilson, R. D., and Deaton, J. E. (1995). Human probability matching behaviour in response to alarms of varying reliability. Ergonomics 38, 2300-2312. doi: 10.1080/00140139508925269
6. Bogacz, R. (2007). Optimal decision-making theories: linking neurobiology with behaviour. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11, 118-125. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.006
7. Chancey, E. T., Bliss, J. P., Proaps, A. B., and Madhavan, P. (2015). The role of trust as a mediator between system characteristics and response behaviors. Hum. Factors 57, 947-958. doi: 10.1177/0018720815582261
8. Chib, V. S., Rangel, A., Shimojo, S., and O’Doherty, J. P. (2009). Evidence for a common representation of decision values for dissimilar goods in human ventromedial prefrontal cortex. J. Neurosci. 29, 12315-12320. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2575-09.2009
9. Christie, G. J., and Tata, M. S. (2009). Right frontal cortex generates rewardrelated theta-band oscillatory activity. Neuroimage 48, 415-422. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.076
10. Coe, B., Tomihara, K., Matsuzawa, M., and Hikosaka, O. (2002). Visual and anticipatory bias in three cortical eye fields of the monkey during an adaptive decision-making task. J. Neurosci. 22, 5081-5090.
11. Cohen, M. X., and Donner, T. H. (2013). Midfrontal conflict-related theta-band power reflects neural oscillations that predict behavior. J. Neurophysiol. 110, 2752-2763. doi: 10.1152/jn.00479.2013
12. Cohen, M. X., Elger, C. E., and Fell, J. (2009). Oscillatory activity and phaseamplitude coupling in the human medial frontal cortex during decision making. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 21, 390-402. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.21020
13. Cohen, M. X., Wilmes, K. A., and van de Vijver, I. (2011). Cortical electrophysiological network dynamics of feedback learning. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15, 558-566. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.10.004
14. Corritore, L., Kracher, B., and Wiedenbeck, S. (2003). On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 58, 737-758. doi: 10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00041-7
15. Daly, M. A. (2002). Task Load and Automation Use in an Uncertain Environment. No. AFIT/GAQ/ENV/02M-05. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Air Force Institute of Technology, School of Engineering and Management.
16. Davis, C. E., Hauf, J. D., Wu, D. Q., and Everhart, D. E. (2011). Brain function with complex decision making using electroencephalography. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 79, 175-183. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2010.10.004
17. Dekker, S. W., and Woods, D. D. (2002). Maba-maba or abracadabra? Progress on human-automation co-ordination. Cogn. Technol. Work 4, 240-244. doi: 10.1007/s101110200022
18. Delgado, M. R., Frank, R. H., and Phelps, E. A. (2005). Perceptions of moral character modulate the neural systems of reward during the trust game. Nat. Neurosci. 8, 1611-1618. doi: 10.1038/nn1575
19. Dixon, S. R., Wickens, C. D., and McCarley, J. S. (2006). '‘How do automation false alarms and misses affect operator compliance and reliance?,'' in Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (Champaign, IL), 25-29.
20. Dixon, S. R., Wickens, C. D., and McCarley, J. S. (2007). On the independence of compliance and reliance: are automation false alarms worse than misses? Hum. Factors 49, 564-572. doi: 10.1518/001872007x215656
21. Dzindolet, M. T., Pierce, L. G., Beck, H. P., Dawe, L. A. and Anderson, B. W. (2001). Predicting misuse and disuse of combat identification systems. Mil. Psychol. 13, 147-164. doi: 10.1207/s15327876mp1303_2
22. Dzindolet, M. T., Pierce, L. G., Beck, H. P., and Dawe, L. A.. (1999). '‘Misuse and disuse of automated aids.,'' in Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (Santa Monica, CA), 339-343.
23. Dzindolet, M. T., Pierce, L. G., Beck, H. P., and Dawe, L. A. (2002). The perceived utility of human and automated aids in a visual detection task. Hum. Factors 44, 79-94. doi: 10.1518/0018720024494856
24. Dzindolet, M., Peterson, S., Pomranky, T., and Beck, P. (2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 58, 697-718. doi: 10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00038-7
25. Evans, A. M., and Krueger, J. I. (2011). Elements of trust: risk and perspectivetaking. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47, 171-177. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.08.007
26. Fellows, L. K. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of human decision making: a review and conceptual framework. Behav. Cogn. Neurosci. Rev. 3, 159-172. doi: 10.1177/1534582304273251
27. Figner, B., and Murphy, R. O.. (2011). '‘Using skin conductance in judgment and decision making research,'' in A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods for Decision Research, eds M. Schulte-Mecklenbeck, A. Kuehberger, and R. Ranyard (New York, NY: Psychology Press), 163-184.
28. Geels-Blair, K., Rice, S., and Schwark, J. (2013). Using system-wide trust theory to reveal the contagion effects of automation false alarms and misses on compliance and reliance in a simulated aviation task. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 23, 245-266. doi: 10.1080/10508414.2013.799355
29. Gianotti, L. R., Knoch, D., Faber, P. L., Lehmann, D., Pascual-Marqui, R. D., Diezi, C., et al. (2009). Tonic activity level in the right prefrontal cortex predicts individuals’ risk taking. Psychol. Sci. 20, 33-38. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02260.x
30. Gläscher, J., Hampton, A. N., and O’Doherty, J. P. (2009). Determining a role for ventromedial prefrontal cortex in encoding action-based value signals during reward-related decision making. Cereb. Cortex 19, 483-495. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhn098
31. Glimcher, P. W., and Fehr, E. (2013). Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain. (New York, NY: Academic Press).
32. Glimcher, P. W., and Rustichini, A. (2004). Neuroeconomics: the consilience of brain and decision. Science 306, 447-452. doi: 10.1126/science.1102566
33. Goddard, K., Roudsari, A., and Wyatt, J. C. (2014). Automation bias: empirical results assessing influencing factors. Int. J. Med. Inform. 83, 368-375. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.01.001
34. Gold, C., Körber, M., Hohenberger, C., Lechner, D., and Bengler, K. (2015). Trust in automation-Before and after the experience of take-over scenarios in a highly automated vehicle. Procedia Manuf. 3, 3025-3032. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.847
35. Gold, J. I., and Shadlen, M. N. (2007). The neural basis of decision making. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 30, 535-574. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113038
36. Goldberg, M. E., Bisley, J. W., Powell, K. D., and Gottlieb, J. (2006). Saccades, salience and attention: the role of the lateral intraparietal area in visual behavior. Prog. Brain Res. 155, 157-175. doi: 10.1016/s0079-6123(06)55010-1
37. Guggisberg, A. G., Dalal, S. S., Findlay, A. M., and Nagarajan, S. S. (2007). Highfrequency oscillations in distributed neural networks reveal the dynamics of human decision making Front. Hum. Neurosci. 1:14. doi: 10.3389/neuro.09.014.2007
38. Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y., de Visser, E. J., and Parasuraman, R. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in humanrobot interaction. Hum. Factors 53, 517-527. doi: 10.1177/0018720811417254
39. Hare, T. A., O’Doherty, J., Camerer, C. F., Schultz, W., and Rangel, A. (2008). Dissociating the role of the orbitofrontal cortex and the striatum in the computation of goal values and prediction errors. J. Neurosci. 28, 5623-5630. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1309-08.2008
40. Haynes, J. D. (2011). Decoding and predicting intentions. Ann. N Y Acad. Sci. 1224, 9-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.05994.x
41. Haynes, J. D., Sakai, K., Rees, G., Gilbert, S., Frith, C., and Passingham, R. E.. (2007). Reading hidden intentions in the human brain. Curr. Biol. 17, 323-328. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.11.072
42. Heekeren, H. R., Marrett, S., and Ungerleider, L. G. (2008). The neural systems that mediate human perceptual decision making. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 9, 467-479. doi: 10.1038/nrn2374
43. Jamieson, G. A., and Vicente, K. J. (2005). Designing effective human-automationplant interfaces: a control-theoretic perspective. Hum. Factors 47, 12-34. doi: 10.1518/0018720053653820
44. Kable, J. W., and Glimcher, P. W. (2007). The neural correlates of subjective value during intertemporal choice. Nat. Neurosci. 10, 1625-1633. doi: 10.1038/nn2007
45. Kiani, R., and Shadlen, M. N. (2009). Representation of confidence associated with a decision by neurons in the parietal cortex. Science 324, 759-764. doi: 10.1126/science.1169405
46. Krajbich, I., Armel, C., and Rangel, A. (2010). Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nat. Neurosci. 13, 1292-1298. doi: 10.1038/nn.2635
47. Krajbich, I., and Rangel, A. (2011). Multialternative drift-diffusion model predicts the relationship between visual fixations and choice in value-based decisions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 108, 13852-13857. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1101328108
48. Kumagai, T., Sakaguchi, Y., Owuwa, M., and Akamatsu, M. (2003). '‘Prediction of driving behavior through probabilistic inference.,'' in Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference On Engineering Applications of Neural Networks (EANN’03) (Torremolinos, Malaga, Spain), 117-123.
49. Lavazza, A., and De Caro, M. (2010). Not so fast. On some bold neuroscientific claims concerning human agency. Neuroethics 3, 23-41. doi: 10.1007/s12152-009-9053-9
50. Lee, J., and Moray, N. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics 35, 1243-1270. doi: 10.1080/00140139208967392
51. Lee, J. D., and Moray, N. (1994). Trust, self-confidence and operators’ adaptation to automation. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 40, 153-184. doi: 10.1006/ijhc.1994.1007
52. Lee, J. D., and See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum. Factors 46, 50-80. doi: 10.1518/hfes.46.1.50.30392
53. Libet, B. (1993). Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Neurophysiol. Conscious., (Boston: Birkhäuser), 269-306. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-0355-1_16
54. Lim, S.-L., O’Doherty, J. P., and Rangel, A. (2011). The decision value computations in the vmPFC and striatum use a relative value code that is guided by visual attention. J. Neurosci. 31, 13214-13223. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1246-11.2011
55. Lyons, J. B., and Stokes, C. K. (2012). Human-human reliance in the context of automation. Hum. Factors 54, 112-121. doi: 10.1177/0018720811427034
56. Madhavan, P., and Wiegmann, D. (2007). Similarities and differences between human-human and human-automation trust: an integrative review. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 8, 277-301. doi: 10.1080/14639220500337708
57. Madhavan, P., Wiegmann, D. A., and Lacson, F. C. (2006). Automation failures on tasks easily performed by operators undermine trust in automated aids. Hum. Factors 48, 241-256. doi: 10.1518/001872006777724408
58. Manzey, D., Bahner, J. E., and Hueper, A.-D. (2006). Misuse of automated aids in process control: complacency, automation bias and possible training interventions Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meeting, 50, 220-224. doi: 10.1177/154193120605000303
59. Manzey, D., Gérard, N., and Wiczorek, R. (2014). Decision-making and response strategies in interaction with alarms: the impact of alarm reliability, availability of alarm validity information and workload. Ergonomics 57, 1833-1855. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2014.957732
60. Masalonis, A. J., and Parasuraman, R. (1999). Trust as a construct for evaluation of automated aids: past and future theory and research Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meeting, 43, 184-187. doi: 10.1177/154193129904300312
61. Merritt, S. M. (2011). Affective processes in human automation interactions. Hum. Factors 53, 356-370. doi: 10.1177/0018720811411912
62. Merritt, S. M., Heimbaugh, H., LaChapell, J., and Lee, D. (2012). I trust it, but I don’t know why effects of implicit attitudes toward automation on trust in an automated system. Hum. Factors 55, 520-534. doi: 10.1177/0018720812465081
63. Merritt, S. M., Huber, K., LaChapell-Unnerstall, J., and Lee, D. (2014). Continuous Calibration of Trust in Automated Systems. St. Louis, MO: University of Missouri-St. Louis.
64. Merritt, S. M., and Ilgen, D. R. (2008). Not all trust is created equal: dispositional and history-based trust in human-automation interactions. Hum. Factors 50, 194-210. doi: 10.1518/001872008x288574
65. Meyer, J. (2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Hum. Factors 43, 563-572. doi: 10.1518/001872001775870395
66. Meyer, J. (2004). Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings. Hum. Factors 46, 196-204. doi: 10.1518/hfes.46.2.196.37335
67. Meyer, J., and Bitan, Y. (2002). Why better operators receive worse warnings. Hum. Factors 44, 343-353. doi: 10.1518/0018720024497754
68. Meyer, J., Wiczorek, R., and Günzler, T. (2014). Measures of reliance and compliance in aided visual scanning. Hum. Factors 56, 840-849. doi: 10.1177/0018720813512865
69. Miller, C. A. (2005). '‘Trust in adaptive automation: the role of etiquette in tuning trust via analogic and affective methods,'' in Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Augmented Cognition (Las Vegas, NV).
70. Moray, N. (2003). Monitoring, complacency, scepticism and eutactic behaviour. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 31, 175-178. doi: 10.1016/s0169-8141(02)00194-4
71. Moray, N., Inagaki, T., and Itoh, M. (2000). Adaptive automation, trust and selfconfidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 6, 44-58. doi: 10.1037/1076-898x.6.1.44
72. Mosier, K. L., and Skitka, L. J. (1996). Human decision makers and automated decision aids: made for each other. Autom. Hum. Perform. Theory Appl. 40, 201-220.
73. Muir, B. M. (1994). Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics 37, 1905-1922. doi: 10.1080/00140139408964957
74. Muir, B. M., and Moray, N. (1996). Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics 39, 429-460. doi: 10.1080/00140139608964474
75. Mulder, M., van Maanen, L., and Forstmann, B. (2014). Perceptual decision neurosciences-a model-based review. Neuroscience 277, 872-884. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.07.031
76. Musallam, S., Corneil, B., Greger, B., Scherberger, H., and Andersen, R. (2004). Cognitive control signals for neural prosthetics. Science 305, 258-262. doi: 10.1126/science.1097938
77. Nass, C., Fogg, B., and Moon, Y. (1996). Can computers be teammates? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 45, 669-678. doi: 10.1006/ijhc.1996.0073
78. Nieuwenhuis, S., Aston-Jones, G., and Cohen, J. D. (2005). Decision making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine system. Psychol. Bull. 131, 510-532. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.510
79. Pak, R., Fink, N., Price, M., Bass, B., and Sturre, L. (2012). Decision support aids with anthropomorphic characteristics influence trust and performance in younger and older adults. Ergonomics 55, 1059-1072. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2012.691554
80. Parasuraman, R., and Manzey, D. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: an attentional integration. Hum. Factors 52, 381-410. doi: 10.1177/0018720810376055
81. Parasuraman, R., and Miller, C. A. (2004). Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems. Commun. ACM 47, 51-55. doi: 10.1145/975817.975844
82. Parasuraman, R., and Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation; use misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum. Factors 39, 230-253. doi: 10.1518/001872097778543886
83. Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., and Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. A Syst. Hum. 30, 286-297. doi: 10.1109/3468.844354
84. Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., and Wickens, C. D. (2008). Situation awareness, mental workload and trust in automation: viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Mak. 2, 140-160. doi: 10.1518/155534308x284417
85. Perez, O., Mukamel, R., Tankus, A., Rosenblatt, J. D., Yeshurun, Y., and Fried, I. (2015). Preconscious prediction of a driver’s decision using intracranial recordings. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 27, 1492-1502. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a1004_00799
86. Philiastides, M. G., Auksztulewicz, R., Heekeren, H. R., and Blankenburg, F. (2011). Causal role of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in human perceptual decision making. Curr. Biol. 21, 980-983. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.04.034
87. Platt, M. L. (2002). Neural correlates of decisions. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 12, 141-148. doi: 10.1016/s0959-4388(02)00302-1
88. Platt, M. L., and Glimcher, P. W. (1999). Neural correlates of decision variables in parietal cortex. Nature 400, 233-238. doi: 10.1038/22268
89. Ploran, E. J., Nelson, S. M., Velanova, K., Donaldson, D. I., Petersen, S. E., and Wheeler, M. E. (2007). Evidence accumulation and the moment of recognition: dissociating perceptual recognition processes using fMRI. J. Neurosci. 27, 11912-11924. doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.3522-07.2007
90. Poole, A., and Ball, L. J. (2006). Eye tracking in HCI and usability research. Encyclopedia Hum. Comput. Interact. 1, 211-219. doi: 10.4018/978-1-59140-562-7.ch034
91. Rangel, A., Camerer, C., and Montague, P. R. (2008). A framework for studying the neurobiology of value-based decision making. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 9, 545-556. doi: 10.1038/nrn2357
92. Rangel, A., and Hare, T. (2010). Neural computations associated with goaldirected choice. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 20, 262-270. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2010.03.001
93. Rice, S. (2009). Examining single-and multiple-process theories of trust in automation. J. Gen. Psychol. 136, 303-322. doi: 10.3200/GENP.136.3.303-322
94. Rice, S., and Geels, K. (2010). Using system-wide trust theory to make predictions about dependence on four diagnostic aids. J. Gen. Psychol. 137, 362-375. doi: 10.1080/00221309.2010.499397
95. Rorie, A. E., Gao, J., McClelland, J. L., and Newsome, W. T. (2010). Integration of sensory and reward information during perceptual decision-making in lateral intraparietal cortex (LIP) of the macaque monkey PLoS One 5:e9308. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009308
96. Schaefer, K. E., Billings, D. R., Szalma, J. L., Adams, J. K., Sanders, T. L., Chen, J. Y., et al. (2014). A Meta-Analysis of Factors Influencing the Development of Trust in Automation: Implications for Human-Robot Interaction. No. ARLTR-6984. Aberdeen, MD: Army Research Laboratory’s, Human Research and Engineering Directorate.
97. Schaefer, K. E., Sanders, T. L., Yordon, R. E., Billings, D. R., and Hancock, P. (2012). '‘Classification of robot form: factors predicting perceived trustworthiness,'' in Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 56th Annual Meeting (Boston, MA).
98. Sheridan, T.. (1980). '‘Theory of man-machine interaction as related to computerized automation,'' in Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Advanced Control Conference, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
99. Sheridan, T. B., and Hennessy, R. T. (1984). Research and Modeling of Supervisory Control Behavior. Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: National Research Council, Committee on Human Factors.
100. Singh, I. L., Molloy, R., and Parasuraman, R. (1997). Automation-induced monitoring inefficiency: role of display location. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 46, 17-30. doi: 10.1006/ijhc.1996.0081
101. Skitka, L. J., Mosier, K. L., and Burdick, M. (1999). Does automation bias decision-making? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 51, 991-1006. doi: 10.1006/ijhc.1999.0252
102. Skitka, L. J., Mosier, K. L., Burdick, M., and Rosenblatt, B. (2000). Automation bias and errors: are crews better than individuals? Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 10, 85-97. doi: 10.1207/s15327108ijap1001_5
103. Sokolov, E., Spinks, J., Naatanen, R., and Risto-Ktttubebm, G. (2002). The Orienting Response in Information Processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
104. Soon, C. S., Brass, M., Heinze, H.-J., and Haynes, J.-D. (2008). Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nat. Neurosci. 11, 543-545. doi: 10.1038/nn.2112
105. Soon, C. S., He, A. H., Bode, S., and Haynes, J.-D. (2013). Predicting free choices for abstract intentions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 110, 6217-6222. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212218110
106. Terai, H., Okuda, H., Hitomi, K., Bando, T., Miyajima, C., Hirayama, Y., et al. (2015). An experimental study on the difference in drivers’ decision making behavior during manual and supported driving. Procedia Manuf. 3, 3136-3141. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.974
107. van de Vijver, I., Ridderinkhof, K. R., and Cohen, M. X. (2011). Frontal oscillatory dynamics predict feedback learning and action adjustment. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 23, 4106-4121. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00110
108. Verberne, F. M. F., Ham, J., and Midden, C. J. H. (2012). Trust in smart systems: sharing driving goals and giving information to increase trustworthiness and acceptability of smart systems in cars. Hum. Factors 54, 799-810. doi: 10.1177/0018720812443825
109. Wallis, J. D. (2012). Cross-species studies of orbitofrontal cortex and value-based decision-making. Nat. Neurosci. 15, 13-19. doi: 10.1038/nn.2956
110. Wang, L., Jamieson, G. A., and Hollands, J. G. (2008). '‘Selecting methods for the analysis of reliance on automation,'' in Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 52nd Annual Meeting (Santa Monica, CA), 287-291.
111. Wang, L., Jamieson, G. A., and Hollands, J. G. (2009). Trust and reliance on an automated combat identification system. Hum. Factors 51, 281-291. doi: 10.1177/0018720809338842
112. Wickens, C. D., and Dixon, S. R. (2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: a synthesis of the literature. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 8, 201-212. doi: 10.1080/14639220500370105
113. Wiczorek, R., and Manzey, D. (2010). '‘Is operators’ compliance with alarm systems a product of rational consideration?,'' in Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting (San Francisco, CA), pp. 1722-1726
114. Wiczorek, R. and Manzey, D. (2014). Supporting attention allocation in multitask environments: effects of likelihood alarm systems on trust, behavior, and performance. Hum. Factors 56, 1209-1221. doi: 10.1177/0018720814528534
115. Yacubian, J., Gläscher, J., Schroeder, K., Sommer, T., Braus, D. F., and Büchel, C. (2006). Dissociable systems for gain-and loss-related value predictions and errors of prediction in the human brain. J. Neurosci. 26, 9530-9537. doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.2915-06.2006
116. Yeh, M., and Wickens, C. D. (2000). Effects of cue reliability, realism and interactivity on biases of attention and trust in augmented reality Proc Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meeting, 44, 511-514. doi: 10.1177/154193120004400507