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. Issue 10 (3rd October 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chavaillaz, Alain; Schwaninger, Adrian; Michel, Stefan; Sauer, Juergen
• Is Part Of: Ergonomics. Volume 61:Issue 10(2018)
• Page Start: 1395
• Page End: 1408
• Publication Date: 2018-10-03
• Subjects: Adaptable automation -- airport security -- visual inspection -- system reliability -- performance; Human engineering -- Periodicals; Cybernetics -- Periodicals; Industrial management -- Periodicals; Ergonomie -- Périodiques; Cybernétique -- Périodiques; Gestion d'entreprise -- Périodiques; 620.8205
• DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2018.1481231
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0014-0139

Abstract

Abstract: The present study evaluated three automation modes for improving performance in an X-ray luggage screening task. One hundred and forty participants were asked to detect the presence of prohibited items in X-ray images of cabin luggage. Twenty participants conducted this task without automatic support (control group), whereas the others worked with either indirect cues (system indicated the target presence without specifying its location), or direct cues (system pointed out the exact target location) or adaptable automation (participants could freely choose between no cue, direct and indirect cues). Furthermore, automatic support reliability was manipulated (low versus high). The results showed a clear advantage for direct cues regarding detection performance and response time. No benefits were observed for adaptable automation. Finally, high automation reliability led to better performance and higher operator trust. The findings overall confirmed that automatic support systems for luggage screening should be designed such that they provide direct, highly reliable cues.Practitioner summary: The present study confirmed previous findings showing better detection performance in X-ray images of luggage when supported by automation providing direct, highly reliable cues. Furthermore, participants used adaptable automation only to select their preferred level of automation. This behaviour did not provide the benefits expected under adaptable automation.