Remote sensing meets psychology: a concept for operator performance assessment

An often undervalued but inevitable component in remote sensing image analysis is human perception and interpretation. Human intervention is a requisite for visual image interpretation, where the interpreter actually performs the analysis. Although image processing became more and more automated, human screening and interpretation remained indispensable at certain stages. One particular stage where the operator plays a crucial role is in the development of reference maps. This is often done by a visual interpretation of an image by an operator. Although the result is crucial for adequately assessing automated systems' performance, the work of the human operator is rarely questioned. No variability is considered and the possibility of errors is not mentioned. This is an implicit assumption that operator performance approaches perfection and that infrequent errors are randomly distributed across time, operators and image types. Given that the existence of operator variability has been proven in several other related domains, for example, screening of medical images, this assumption may be questioned. This letter brings the issue to the attention of the remote sensing community and introduces a new concept quantifying operator variability. As the WAVARS project (web-based assessment of operator performance variability within remote sensing image interpretation tasks) will gain from a high amount of data, we kindly invite interested researchers to access the website http://wavars.ugent.be and take part in the test.

[1]  A Bisseret,et al.  Application of signal detection theory to decision making in supervisory control The effect of the operator's experience , 1981 .

[2]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Angles of Regard: Psychology Meets Technology in the Perception and Interpretation of Nonliteral Imagery , 2001, Interpreting Remote Sensing Imagery.

[3]  P. Costa,et al.  Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. , 1987, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[4]  C. S. Green,et al.  Action video game modifies visual selective attention , 2003, Nature.

[5]  D. Leckie Stand delineation and composition estimation using semi-automated individual tree crown analysis , 2003 .

[6]  R. Parasuraman Vigilance, monitoring, and search. , 1986 .

[7]  R. McCrae,et al.  An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. , 1992, Journal of personality.

[8]  A. Markman,et al.  Interpreting Remote Sensing Imagery : Human Factors , 2001 .

[9]  M. Loeb,et al.  The Psychology of Vigilance , 1982 .

[10]  C G Drury,et al.  Inspection of Sheet Materials — Model and Data , 1975, Human factors.

[11]  M. Hodgson What Size Window for Image Classification? A Cognitive Perspective , 1998 .

[12]  L. Kaufman,et al.  Cognitive processes and performance , 1986 .

[13]  D Laming,et al.  Improving the detection of cancer in the screening of mammograms , 2000, Journal of medical screening.

[14]  Limin Yang,et al.  Accuracy assessment for the U.S. Geological Survey Regional Land-Cover Mapping Program: New York and New Jersey Region , 2000 .

[15]  Jan Flusser,et al.  Image registration methods: a survey , 2003, Image Vis. Comput..

[16]  M. Hansen,et al.  The DISCover validation image interpretation process , 1999 .

[17]  Adam C. Winstanley,et al.  Segmentation performance evaluation for object-based remotely sensed image analysis , 2010 .

[18]  Hugo Carrão,et al.  Incorporating reference classification uncertainty into the analysis of land cover accuracy , 2009 .

[19]  Ariella V. Popple Context effects on texture border localization bias , 2003, Vision Research.

[20]  Mário Caetano,et al.  A method to incorporate uncertainty in the classification of remote sensing images , 2009 .

[21]  Thomas Esch,et al.  Improvement of Image Segmentation Accuracy Based on Multiscale Optimization Procedure , 2008, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters.

[22]  D. Roberts,et al.  Sources of error in accuracy assessment of thematic land-cover maps in the Brazilian Amazon , 2004 .

[23]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The Transfer of Failure-Detection Skills between Monitoring and Controlling Dynamic Systems , 1982 .

[24]  L. Giambra,et al.  Sex differences in sustained attention across the adult life span. , 1989, The Journal of applied psychology.

[25]  E L Wiener,et al.  Application of Vigilance Research: Rare, Medium, or Well Done? , 1987, Human factors.

[26]  C. L. Rose,et al.  The role of the Big Five personality factors in vigilance performance and workload , 2002 .

[27]  Weiqi Zhou,et al.  Mapping urban landscape heterogeneity: agreement between visual interpretation and digital classification approaches , 2009, Landscape Ecology.

[28]  F. Albrecht,et al.  Spatial accuracy assessment of object boundaries for object-based image analysis , 2010 .

[29]  Russell G. Congalton,et al.  A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data , 1991 .

[30]  Elizabeth Hampson,et al.  Cognitive Pattern in Men and Women Is Influenced by Fluctuations in Sex Hormones , 1994 .

[31]  Alexandre Carleer,et al.  Assessment of Very High Spatial Resolution Satellite Image Segmentations , 2005 .

[32]  Giles M. Foody,et al.  Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment , 2002 .

[33]  J. Scepan,et al.  Thematic validation of high-resolution Global Land-Cover Data sets , 1999 .

[34]  Katherine W. Ellison,et al.  Psychology and criminal justice , 1981 .

[35]  Edward K. Vogel,et al.  The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions , 1997, Nature.

[36]  D. Halpern Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities , 1986 .