School of Applied Psychology, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern, Switzerland.
School of Applied Psychology, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern, Switzerland.
Appl Ergon. 2018 Oct;72:58-68. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2018.05.003. Epub 2018 May 15.
Bomb attacks on civil aviation make detecting improvised explosive devices and explosive material in passenger baggage a major concern. In the last few years, explosive detection systems for cabin baggage screening (EDSCB) have become available. Although used by a number of airports, most countries have not yet implemented these systems on a wide scale. We investigated the benefits of EDSCB with two different levels of automation currently being discussed by regulators and airport operators: automation as a diagnostic aid with an on-screen alarm resolution by the airport security officer (screener) or EDSCB with an automated decision by the machine. The two experiments reported here tested and compared both scenarios and a condition without automation as baseline. Participants were screeners at two international airports who differed in both years of work experience and familiarity with automation aids. Results showed that experienced screeners were good at detecting improvised explosive devices even without EDSCB. EDSCB increased only their detection of bare explosives. In contrast, screeners with less experience (tenure < 1 year) benefitted substantially from EDSCB in detecting both improvised explosive devices and bare explosives. A comparison of all three conditions showed that automated decision provided better human-machine detection performance than on-screen alarm resolution and no automation. This came at the cost of slightly higher false alarm rates on the human-machine system level, which would still be acceptable from an operational point of view. Results indicate that a wide-scale implementation of EDSCB would increase the detection of explosives in passenger bags and automated decision instead of automation as diagnostic aid with on screen alarm resolution should be considered.
针对民航的炸弹袭击使得检测乘客行李中的简易爆炸装置和爆炸物成为主要关注点。在过去几年中,舱内行李安检爆炸物检测系统(EDSCB)已经问世。尽管一些机场已经在使用这些系统,但大多数国家尚未广泛实施这些系统。我们研究了 EDSCB 的两种不同自动化程度的优势,这两种自动化程度目前正在监管机构和机场运营商之间讨论:一种是自动化作为诊断辅助工具,由机场安检员(安检员)在屏幕上解决警报,另一种是 EDSCB 由机器自动做出决策。这里报告的两个实验测试和比较了这两种情况以及没有自动化作为基线的情况。参与者是来自两个国际机场的安检员,他们在工作经验和对自动化辅助工具的熟悉程度方面存在差异。结果表明,经验丰富的安检员即使没有 EDSCB 也能很好地检测简易爆炸装置。EDSCB 仅增加了他们对裸露爆炸物的检测。相比之下,经验较少的安检员(任期不足 1 年)在检测简易爆炸装置和裸露爆炸物方面,从 EDSCB 中获益匪浅。将所有三种情况进行比较的结果表明,与屏幕警报解决和无自动化相比,自动决策为人机检测性能提供了更好的结果。这是以人机系统水平上略微增加误报率为代价的,但从操作角度来看,这仍然是可以接受的。结果表明,广泛实施 EDSCB 将提高对乘客行李中爆炸物的检测,并且应考虑采用自动决策代替自动化作为具有屏幕警报解决功能的诊断辅助工具。