Some cues are more equal than others: Cue plausibility for false alarms in baggage screening.

This study investigated the effects of cue plausibility in a baggage screening task. 120 participants had to indicate whether a prohibited item was present in a series of grey-scaled X-ray images of baggage. They were assisted by a support system, which pointed at the location of a suspicious object. A 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects design was used. Cue plausibility for false alarms (i.e. how the cued object was similar to a prohibited item) and support system reliability were manipulated at two levels (high/low). Furthermore, half of participants were provided with a rationale about automation failures (RAF) to reduce their negative impact on trust and performance. The results showed lower performance and more compliance with automation suggestions when cues were implausible than plausible. The RAF increased the response time and did not improve detection performance. Overall, this suggests that effective (computer-based) training is needed to reduce the negative effect of plausible cues.

[1]  Anind K. Dey,et al.  Why and why not explanations improve the intelligibility of context-aware intelligent systems , 2009, CHI.

[2]  Holger Horz,et al.  Comprehending conflicting science-related texts: graphs as plausibility cues , 2013 .

[3]  Adrian Schwaninger,et al.  Automation in visual inspection tasks: X-ray luggage screening supported by a system of direct, indirect or adaptable cueing with low and high system reliability , 2018, Ergonomics.

[4]  Mark W. Scerbo,et al.  Automation-induced complacency for monitoring highly reliable systems: the role of task complexity, system experience, and operator trust , 2007 .

[5]  Douglas A. Wiegmann,et al.  Effects of Automation Failure in a Luggage Screening Task: A Comparison between Direct and Indirect Cueing , 2005 .

[6]  Nicole Hättenschwiler,et al.  Automation in airport security X-ray screening of cabin baggage: Examining benefits and possible implementations of automated explosives detection. , 2018, Applied ergonomics.

[7]  Carlos Guestrin,et al.  "Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier , 2016, ArXiv.

[8]  N Moray,et al.  Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. , 1992, Ergonomics.

[9]  Colin G Drury,et al.  Change of search time and non-search time in X-ray baggage screening due to training , 2009, Ergonomics.

[10]  Diana Hardmeier,et al.  Aviation Security Screeners Visual Abilities & Visual Knowledge Measurement , 2005 .

[11]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

[12]  Kait Clark,et al.  Overcoming hurdles in translating visual search research between the lab and the field. , 2012, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

[13]  Jaap Ham,et al.  Trust in Smart Systems , 2012, Hum. Factors.

[14]  John D. Lee,et al.  Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance , 2004 .

[15]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[16]  Colin G. Drury,et al.  Foundations for an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Automated Systems , 2000 .

[17]  Xiaochun Jiang,et al.  Theoretical issues in the design of visual inspection systems , 2004 .

[18]  A. Schwaninger,et al.  The X-ray object recognition test (X-ray ORT) - a reliable and valid instrument for measuring visual abilities needed in X-ray screening , 2005, Proceedings 39th Annual 2005 International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology.

[19]  A. M. Rich,et al.  Automated diagnostic aids: The effects of aid reliability on users' trust and reliance , 2001 .

[20]  Douglas A. Wiegmann,et al.  Automation Failures on Tasks Easily Performed by Operators Undermines Trust in Automated Aids , 2003 .

[21]  Stephen R. Mitroff,et al.  Using Cognitive Psychology Research to Inform Professional Visual Search Operations , 2018, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.

[22]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Varying Target Prevalence Reveals Two Dissociable Decision Criteria in Visual Search , 2010, Current Biology.

[23]  Jason S McCarley,et al.  Effects of response bias and judgment framing on operator use of an automated aid in a target detection task. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[24]  Adam T. Biggs,et al.  Improving the Efficacy of Security Screening Tasks: A Review of Visual Search Challenges and Ways to Mitigate Their Adverse Effects , 2015 .

[25]  David B. Kaber,et al.  Effects of in-vehicle navigation assistance and performance on driver trust and vehicle control , 2007 .

[26]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[27]  Nicole Hättenschwiler,et al.  A first exploratory study on the relevance of everyday object knowledge and training for increasing efficiency in airport security X-ray screening , 2015, 2015 International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (ICCST).

[28]  Adrian Schwaninger,et al.  Airport Security Screener Competency: A Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis , 2013 .

[29]  Yanik Sterchi,et al.  A first simulation on optimizing EDS for cabin baggage screening regarding throughput , 2015, 2015 International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (ICCST).

[30]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: a synthesis of the literature , 2007 .

[31]  Adrian Schwaninger,et al.  Expertise, Automation and Trust in X-Ray Screening of Cabin Baggage , 2019, Front. Psychol..

[32]  Joachim Meyer,et al.  Effects of Warning Validity and Proximity on Responses to Warnings , 2001, Hum. Factors.

[33]  Regina A. Pomranky,et al.  The role of trust in automation reliance , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[34]  Douglas A. Wiegmann,et al.  Effects of Attribute and Goal Framing on Automation Reliance and Compliance , 2005 .

[35]  Jürgen Sauer,et al.  System reliability, performance and trust in adaptable automation. , 2016, Applied ergonomics.