Mendes, Marcia
E-Mail-Adresse
Geburtsdatum
Suchergebnisse
Detecting Bombs in X-Ray Images of Hold Baggage: 2D Versus 3D Imaging
Objective: This study compared the visual inspection performance of airport security officers (screeners) when screening hold baggage with state-of-the-art 3D versus older 2D imaging. Background: 3D imaging based on computer tomography features better automated detection of explosives and higher baggage throughput than older 2D X-ray imaging technology. Nonetheless, some countries and airports hesitate to implement 3D systems due to their lower image quality and the concern that screeners will need extensive and specific training before they can be allowed to work with 3D imaging. Method: Screeners working with 2D imaging (2D screeners) and screeners working with 3D imaging (3D screeners) conducted a simulated hold baggage screening task with both types of imaging. Differences in image quality of the imaging systems were assessed with the standard procedure for 2D imaging. Results: Despite lower image quality, screeners’ detection performance with 3D imaging was similar to that with 2D imaging. 3D screeners revealed higher detection performance with both types of imaging than 2D screeners. Conclusion: Features of 3D imaging systems (3D image rotation and slicing) seem to compensate for lower image quality. Visual inspection competency acquired with one type of imaging seems to transfer to visual inspection with the other type of imaging. Application: Replacing older 2D with newer 3D imaging systems can be recommended. 2D screeners do not need extensive and specific training to achieve comparable detection performance with 3D imaging. Current image quality standards for 2D imaging need revision before they can be applied to 3D imaging.
Technology, human factors, and a holistic approach to checkpoint screening. Part II: A holistic approach to checkpoint screening
Motion Imaging - Evaluation einer neuen Röntgentechnologie für Luftsicherheitskontrollen an Flughäfen
On screen alarm resolution with explosive detection systems for cabin baggage screening
Technology, human factors, and a holistic approach to checkpoint screening. Part I: Technology and human factors
Analyse von Stressoren und Ressourcen in Zusammenhang mit Gesundheit und Arbeitsleistung bei Luftsicherheitsbeauftragten eines internationalen Flughafens
Socio-technical approach and explosive detection systems for cabin baggage screening
Automation in airport security X-ray screening of cabin baggage: Examining benefits and possible implementations of automated explosives detection
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.