Literature DB >> 33630179

Visual search behavior and performance in luggage screening: effects of time pressure, automation aid, and target expectancy.

Tobias Rieger1, Lydia Heilmann2, Dietrich Manzey2.   

Abstract

Visual inspection of luggage using X-ray technology at airports is a time-sensitive task that is often supported by automated systems to increase performance and reduce workload. The present study evaluated how time pressure and automation support influence visual search behavior and performance in a simulated luggage screening task. Moreover, we also investigated how target expectancy (i.e., targets appearing in a target-often location or not) influenced performance and visual search behavior. We used a paradigm where participants used the mouse to uncover a portion of the screen which allowed us to track how much of the stimulus participants uncovered prior to their decision. Participants were randomly assigned to either a high (5-s time per trial) or a low (10-s time per trial) time-pressure condition. In half of the trials, participants were supported by an automated diagnostic aid (85% reliability) in deciding whether a threat item was present. Moreover, within each half, in target-present trials, targets appeared in a predictable location (i.e., 70% of targets appeared in the same quadrant of the image) to investigate effects of target expectancy. The results revealed better detection performance with low time pressure and faster response times with high time pressure. There was an overall negative effect of automation support because the automation was only moderately reliable. Participants also uncovered a smaller amount of the stimulus under high time pressure in target-absent trials. Target expectancy of target location improved accuracy, speed, and the amount of uncovered space needed for the search.Significance Statement Luggage screening is a safety-critical real-world visual search task which often has to be done under time pressure. The present research found that time pressure compromises performance and increases the risk to miss critical items even with automation support. Moreover, even highly reliable automated support may not improve performance if it does not exceed the manual capabilities of the human screener. Lastly, the present research also showed that heuristic search strategies (e.g., areas where targets appear more often) seem to guide attention also in luggage screening.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Automation support; Luggage screening; Target expectancy; Time pressure; Visual search

Year:  2021        PMID: 33630179      PMCID: PMC7907401          DOI: 10.1186/s41235-021-00280-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic        ISSN: 2365-7464


  34 in total

1.  Serial attention mechanisms in visual search: a direct behavioral demonstration.

Authors:  Emanuela Bricolo; Tiziana Gianesini; Alessandra Fanini; Claus Bundesen; Leonardo Chelazzi
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2002-10-01       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 2.  Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance.

Authors:  John D Lee; Katrina A See
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.888

3.  Automation in airport security X-ray screening of cabin baggage: Examining benefits and possible implementations of automated explosives detection.

Authors:  Nicole Hättenschwiler; Yanik Sterchi; Marcia Mendes; Adrian Schwaninger
Journal:  Appl Ergon       Date:  2018-05-15       Impact factor: 3.661

Review 4.  More than the Useful Field: Considering peripheral vision in driving.

Authors:  Benjamin Wolfe; Jonathan Dobres; Ruth Rosenholtz; Bryan Reimer
Journal:  Appl Ergon       Date:  2017-07-28       Impact factor: 3.661

5.  Visual search patterns and experience with radiological images.

Authors:  H L Kundel; P S La Follette
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1972-06       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  A feature-integration theory of attention.

Authors:  A M Treisman; G Gelade
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1980-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Benchmarking Aided Decision Making in a Signal Detection Task.

Authors:  Megan L Bartlett; Jason S McCarley
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 2.888

8.  Time pressure heuristics can improve performance due to increased consistency.

Authors:  Stephen Rice; David Trafimow
Journal:  J Gen Psychol       Date:  2012 Oct-Dec

9.  Effects of Trust, Self-Confidence, and Feedback on the Use of Decision Automation.

Authors:  Rebecca Wiczorek; Joachim Meyer
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-03-12

10.  Detection measures for visual inspection of X-ray images of passenger baggage.

Authors:  Yanik Sterchi; Nicole Hättenschwiler; Adrian Schwaninger
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 2.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.