Evaluation of best system performance: Human, automated, and hybrid inspection systems

Recently, 100% inspection with automated systems has seen more frequent application than traditional sampling inspection with human inspectors. Nevertheless, humans still outperform machines in most attribute inspection tasks. Because neither humans nor automation can achieve superior inspection system performance, hybrid inspection systems where humans work cooperatively with machines merit study. In response to this situation, this research was conducted to evaluate three of the following different inspection systems: (1) a human inspection system, (2) a computer search/human decision-making inspection system, and (3) a human/computer share search/decision-making inspection system. Results from this study showed that the human/computer share search/decision-making system achieve the best system performance, suggesting that both should be used in the inspection tasks rather than either alone. Furthermore, this study looked at the interaction between human inspectors and computers, specifically the effect of system response bias on inspection quality performance. These results revealed that the risky system was the best in terms of accuracy measures. Although this study demonstrated how recent advances in computer technology have modified previously prescribed notions about function allocation alternatives in a hybrid inspection environment, the adaptability of humans was again demonstrated, indicating that they will continue to play a vital role in future hybrid systems. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Hum Factors Man 13: 137–152, 2003.

[1]  Colin G. Drury,et al.  Human and Machine Performance in an Inspection Task , 1983 .

[2]  Hyun Seung Yang,et al.  A neural network capable of learning and inference for visual pattern recognition , 1994, Pattern Recognit..

[3]  Colin G. Drury,et al.  Task Analysis of Aircraft Inspection Activities: Methods and Findings , 1990 .

[4]  J D Gould,et al.  Studies of Visual Inspection. , 1973, Ergonomics.

[5]  K S Teel,et al.  Assembly and Inspection of Microelectronic Systems , 1968, Human factors.

[6]  Colin G. Drury,et al.  Task Complexity in Visual Inspection , 1986 .

[7]  Charles A. Harlow,et al.  Automated Visual Inspection: A Survey , 1982, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[8]  C. Drury,et al.  The Effect of Area, Density, and Number of Background Characters on Visual Search , 1978, Human factors.

[9]  Roland T. Chin,et al.  Automated visual inspection: 1981 to 1987 , 1988, Computer Vision Graphics and Image Processing.

[10]  Waldemar Karwowski,et al.  Ergonomics of hybrid automated systems III : proceedings of the Third International Conference on Human Aspects of Advanced Manufacturing and Hybrid Automation, Gelsenkirchen, Germany, August 26-28, 1992 , 1992 .

[11]  Anand K. Gramopadhye,et al.  Evaluation of different training strategies to improve decision-making performance in inspection , 1996 .

[12]  Tung-Hsu Hou,et al.  An empirical study of hybrid inspection systems and allocation of inspection functions , 1993 .

[13]  Bruce G. Batchelor,et al.  Automated Visual Inspection , 1985 .