Introduction: As military environments integrate more complex technological systems, operators increasingly require more assistance from automation. When used properly, automation can significantly enhance performance; however, proper use is predicated on the operator's trust in the automation (TIA). TIA, like trust among people, is influenced by biological, psychosocial, and behavioral aspects. While options for measuring TIA have rapidly expanded in the past decade, there has been little consideration for how well these measures perform in operational environments.
Methods: A 10-yr literature review was conducted to identify TIA measures and rate their appropriateness for operational aeromedical environments. Articles from Google Scholar, EBSCO, and the Defense Technical Information Center databases were included, focusing on user-reported, physiological, and behavioral measures. Study quality was rated by aeromedical research scientists, while aeromedical appropriateness was evaluated by rated military pilots. Measures were categorized as High Recommendation, Cautious Recommendation, or Not Recommended based on these evaluations.
Results: Of the measures reviewed, 28 were recommended for operational use, 23 received cautious recommendations, and 6 were not recommended. The recommended measures demonstrated high research quality and suitability for aeromedical environments. The cautious recommendations highlighted measures with specific limitations that need to be considered in operational settings, while the not recommended measures lacked sufficient evidence for reliable use in these contexts.
Discussion: Several high-quality TIA measures appear suitable for operational aeromedical settings. While these recommendations offer a starting point for testing TIA in aeromedical settings, further research is required to test how well these measures perform in an operational environment. Ranes B, Wilkins J, Kenser E, Caid-Loos M. Trust in automation measures for aeromedical settings. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2024; 95(11):851-861.
Keywords: aviation; behavior; physiology; trust in automation.