Cargando…

Expertise, Automation and Trust in X-Ray Screening of Cabin Baggage

X-ray screening of passenger baggage is a key component in aviation security. The current study investigated how experts and novices performed in an X-ray baggage screening task while being assisted by an adaptable diagnostic aid. Furthermore, it examined how both groups operated and trusted this au...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chavaillaz, Alain, Schwaninger, Adrian, Michel, Stefan, Sauer, Juergen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6382685/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30837917
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00256
_version_ 1783396692344700928
author Chavaillaz, Alain
Schwaninger, Adrian
Michel, Stefan
Sauer, Juergen
author_facet Chavaillaz, Alain
Schwaninger, Adrian
Michel, Stefan
Sauer, Juergen
author_sort Chavaillaz, Alain
collection PubMed
description X-ray screening of passenger baggage is a key component in aviation security. The current study investigated how experts and novices performed in an X-ray baggage screening task while being assisted by an adaptable diagnostic aid. Furthermore, it examined how both groups operated and trusted this automated system. 30 experts (certified screeners) and 31 novices (students) had to indicate whether a target item (either a knife or a gun) was present in a series of X-ray images of cabin baggage. Half of the participants could choose between three different support levels of the diagnostic aid (DA): (1) no support, (2) a cue indicating the presence of a potential target without locating it, or (3) a cue indicating the presence of a potential target by surrounding it with a red frame. As expected, experts achieved higher detection performance (d’), were more self-confident and felt more competent in achieving the task than novices. Furthermore, experts experienced less time pressure and fatigue. Although both groups used the DA in a comparable way (in terms of support level used and frequency of level switches), results showed a performance increase for novices working with the DA compared to novices without support. This benefit of DA was not observed for experts. Interestingly, despite no difference in perceived trust ratings, experts were more compliant (i.e., following DA recommendations when it indicated the presence of a target) and reliant (i.e., following DA recommendations when it indicated the absence of a target) than novices. Altogether, the results of the present study suggested that novices benefited more from a DA than experts. Furthermore, compliance and reliance on DA seemed to depend on expertise with the task. Since experts should be better at assessing the reliability of the DA than novices, they may have used the DA as ‘back-up’ to confirm their decisions based on expertise (confirmatory function), while novices may have used it as a guide to base their decisions on (support function). Finally, trust towards a DA was associated with the degree to which participants found the DA useful.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6382685
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63826852019-03-05 Expertise, Automation and Trust in X-Ray Screening of Cabin Baggage Chavaillaz, Alain Schwaninger, Adrian Michel, Stefan Sauer, Juergen Front Psychol Psychology X-ray screening of passenger baggage is a key component in aviation security. The current study investigated how experts and novices performed in an X-ray baggage screening task while being assisted by an adaptable diagnostic aid. Furthermore, it examined how both groups operated and trusted this automated system. 30 experts (certified screeners) and 31 novices (students) had to indicate whether a target item (either a knife or a gun) was present in a series of X-ray images of cabin baggage. Half of the participants could choose between three different support levels of the diagnostic aid (DA): (1) no support, (2) a cue indicating the presence of a potential target without locating it, or (3) a cue indicating the presence of a potential target by surrounding it with a red frame. As expected, experts achieved higher detection performance (d’), were more self-confident and felt more competent in achieving the task than novices. Furthermore, experts experienced less time pressure and fatigue. Although both groups used the DA in a comparable way (in terms of support level used and frequency of level switches), results showed a performance increase for novices working with the DA compared to novices without support. This benefit of DA was not observed for experts. Interestingly, despite no difference in perceived trust ratings, experts were more compliant (i.e., following DA recommendations when it indicated the presence of a target) and reliant (i.e., following DA recommendations when it indicated the absence of a target) than novices. Altogether, the results of the present study suggested that novices benefited more from a DA than experts. Furthermore, compliance and reliance on DA seemed to depend on expertise with the task. Since experts should be better at assessing the reliability of the DA than novices, they may have used the DA as ‘back-up’ to confirm their decisions based on expertise (confirmatory function), while novices may have used it as a guide to base their decisions on (support function). Finally, trust towards a DA was associated with the degree to which participants found the DA useful. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-02-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6382685/ /pubmed/30837917 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00256 Text en Copyright © 2019 Chavaillaz, Schwaninger, Michel and Sauer. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Chavaillaz, Alain
Schwaninger, Adrian
Michel, Stefan
Sauer, Juergen
Expertise, Automation and Trust in X-Ray Screening of Cabin Baggage
title Expertise, Automation and Trust in X-Ray Screening of Cabin Baggage
title_full Expertise, Automation and Trust in X-Ray Screening of Cabin Baggage
title_fullStr Expertise, Automation and Trust in X-Ray Screening of Cabin Baggage
title_full_unstemmed Expertise, Automation and Trust in X-Ray Screening of Cabin Baggage
title_short Expertise, Automation and Trust in X-Ray Screening of Cabin Baggage
title_sort expertise, automation and trust in x-ray screening of cabin baggage
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6382685/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30837917
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00256
work_keys_str_mv AT chavaillazalain expertiseautomationandtrustinxrayscreeningofcabinbaggage
AT schwaningeradrian expertiseautomationandtrustinxrayscreeningofcabinbaggage
AT michelstefan expertiseautomationandtrustinxrayscreeningofcabinbaggage
AT sauerjuergen expertiseautomationandtrustinxrayscreeningofcabinbaggage