Manual adaptation is slightly superior to automatic adaptation in adaptive training of manual control¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1972 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Manually controlled adaptation of task difficulty produced slightly better trainee performance than machine-controlled automatic adaptation. → Norman 1972

Evidence¶

Norman 1972¶

Norman, D. A.; And Others. (1972). Adaptive Training of Manual Control: 1. Comparison of Three Adaptive Variables and Two Logic Schemes. Life Sciences, Inc. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED059585 doi:10.1037/e426822004-001

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Experimental comparison of eight independent groups of eight subjects each under different training methods on a single-axis tracking task. The report states that "manual adaptation is slightly superior to automatic adaptation" while noting this could reflect differences in performance measurement levels.

"Principal results show that manual adaptation is slightly superior to automatic adaptation, although this could be a function of the difference in performance measurement levels."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Intelligent tutoring systems improve achievement over non-individualised instruction — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Gain-effective time constant product is slightly superior to forcing function amplitude as an adaptive variable — related
• Transfer task performance is the critical measure of what adaptive training accomplishes — related
• System compensation as implemented is not a satisfactory adaptive variable — related
• K-12 educators value product-improvement research more, and individual-adaptation research less, than higher education educators — related
• Natural language control requires less human operation time than manual control for all five complex tasks tested — related