Schwaninger, Adrian
Lade...
E-Mail-Adresse
Geburtsdatum
Projekt
Organisationseinheiten
Berufsbeschreibung
Nachname
Schwaninger
Vorname
Adrian
Name
Schwaninger, Adrian
2 Ergebnisse
Suchergebnisse
Gerade angezeigt 1 - 2 von 2
- PublikationWhy stop after 20 minutes? Breaks and target prevalence in a 60-minute X-ray baggage screening task(Elsevier, 03/2020) Buser, Daniela; Sterchi, Yanik; Schwaninger, Adrian [in: International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics]Current EU regulation restricts continuously reviewing X-ray images of passenger baggage to 20-min duration as a precautionary measure to prevent performance decrements in airport security officers (screeners). However, this 20-min limit is not based on clear empirical evidence on how well screeners can sustain their performance over time. Our study tested screeners in a 60-min simulated X-ray cabin baggage screening task. One group took 10-min breaks after 20 min of screening; the other group worked without breaks. We found no decrease in performance over 60 min in either group. Breaks did not affect performance, but they did reduce the amount of subjective distress. By varying target prevalence, we found that da with a slope of about 0.6 is a more valid measure of detection performance than d’. Target prevalence caused a criterion shift. Our results provide a basis for conducting field studies of prolonged screening durations, and open the discussion on whether more flexible break policies and work schedules should be considered.01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift
- PublikationAutomation reliability, human–machine system performance, and operator compliance: A study with airport security screeners supported by automated explosives detection systems for cabin baggage screening(Elsevier, 2020) Hügli, David; Merks, Sarah; Schwaninger, Adrian [in: Applied Ergonomics]Using a simulated X-ray screening task, we tested 122 airport security screeners working with the support of explosives detection systems for cabin baggage screening (EDSCB) as low-level automation. EDSCB varied systematically on three automation reliability measures: accuracy, d’, and positive predictive value (PPV). Results showed that when unaided performance was high, operator confidence was high, and automation provided only small benefits. When unaided performance was lower, operator confidence was lower, and automation with higher d’ provided large benefits. Operator compliance depended on the PPV of automation: We found lower compliance for lower PPV. Automation with a high false alarm rate of 20% and a low PPV of .3 resulted in operators ignoring about one-half of the true automation alarms on difficult targets—a strong cry-wolf effect. Our results suggest that automation reliability described by d’ and PPV is more valid than using accuracy alone. When the PPV is below .5, operators should receive clear instructions on how to respond to automation alarms.01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift