Normed Images for X-ray Screening Vigilance Tasks

Stephanie Merritt; Lei Shirase; Garett Foster

doi:10.5334/jopd.48

Abstract

A great deal of interest concerns the study of vigilance performance, and trust in automation, due to their implications for public safety. This work provides an experimental resource for scholars in need of a vigilance style task. The dataset includes 150 X-ray images of luggage, and participants indicate whether or not they believe each image contains a dangerous item (simulating airport security screening). Using a sample of 991 adults recruited via MTurk, we normed these items in terms of difficulty. These stimuli can be used to study vigilance performance, trust in an automated decision aid, and other areas.

Funding statement: This research was funded by a grant from the University of Missouri-St. Louis College of Arts & Sciences.

References

Warm, J S, Parasuraman, R and Matthews, G 2008 Vigilance requires hard mental work and is stressful. Human Factors, 50(3): 433–441. DOI: 10.1518/001872008X312152
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Davies, D R and Parasuraman, R 1982 The psychology of vigilance. London: Academic Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Parasuraman, R 1986 Vigilance, monitoring, and search. In Boff, K R, Kaufman, L and Thomas, J P (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance, 2: 43.1–43.39. New York: Wiley.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Helton, W S and Warm, J S 2008 Signal salience and the mindlessness theory of vigilance. Acta Psychologica, 129(1), 18–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.04.002
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nuechterlein, K H, Parasuraman, R and Jiang, Q 1983 Visual sustained attention: Image degradation produces rapid sensitivity decrement over time. Science, 220(4594): 327–329. DOI: 10.1126/science.6836276
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
See, J E, Howe, S R, Warm, J S and Dember, W N 1995 Meta-analysis of the sensitivity decrement in vigilance. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2): 230–249. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.230
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Teichner, W H 1974 The detection of a simple visual signal as a function of time of watch. Human Factors, 16(4): 339–352. DOI: 10.1177/001872087401600402
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ariga, A and Lleras, A 2011 Brief and rare mental “breaks” keep you focused: Deactivation and reactivation of task goals preempt vigilance decrements. Cognition, 118(3): 439–443. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.007
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Correa, Á, Molina, E and Sanabria, D 2014 Effects of chronotype and time of day on the vigilance decrement during simulated driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 67: 113–118. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2014.02.020
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lara, T, Madrid, J A and Correa, Á 2014 The vigilance decrement in executive function is attenuated when individual chronotypes perform at their optimal time of day. PloS one, 9(2): e88820. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088820
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Morgan, K, Johnson, A J and Miles, C 2014 Chewing gum moderates the vigilance decrement. British Journal of Psychology, 105(2): 214–225. DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12025
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ross, H A, Russell, P N and Helton, W S 2014 Effects of breaks and goal switches on the vigilance decrement. Experimental Brain Research, 232(6): 1729–1737. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-014-3865-5
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Temple, J G, Warm, J S, Dember, W N, Jones, K S, LaGrange, C M and Matthews, G 2000 The effects of signal salience and caffeine on performance, workload, and stress in an abbreviated vigilance task. Human Factors, 42(2): 183–194. DOI: 10.1518/001872000779656480
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Young, M S, Robinson, S and Alberts, P 2009 Students pay attention! Combating the vigilance decrement to improve learning during lectures. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(1): 41–55. DOI: 10.1177/1469787408100194
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Merritt, S M 2011 Affective processes in human–automation interactions. Human Factors, 53(4): 356–370. DOI: 10.1177/0018720811411912
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Merritt, S M, Heimbaugh, H, LaChapell, J and Lee, D 2013 I trust it, but I don’t know why: Effects of implicit attitudes toward automation on trust in an automated system. Human Factors, 55(3): 520–534. DOI: 10.1177/0018720812465081
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Merritt, S M and Ilgen, D R 2008 Not all trust is created equal: Dispositional and history-based trust in human-automation interactions. Human Factors, 50(2): 194–210. DOI: 10.1518/001872008X288574
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pop, V L, Shrewsbury, A and Durso, F T 2015 Individual differences in the calibration of trust in automation. Human Factors, 57(4): 545–556. DOI: 10.1177/0018720814564422
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lee, J D and See, K A 2004 Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1): 50–80. DOI: 10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Normed Images for X-ray Screening Vigilance Tasks

Abstract

Paradigm

My account