Visualizing Probability of Detection to Aid Sonar Operator Performance

Abstract

This study tested whether the display of rings indicating the probability of target detection would improve human performance on a simulated active sonar detection task. Participants viewed a series of simulated sonar returns and decided whether a target was present or not. Participants performed the task both with and without uncertainty range rings that indicated 90% and 10% detectability ranges. The probability of detection rings did not improve the overall ability of participants to distinguish targets from noise, but did appear to influence response bias and spatial attention. These results suggest that displaying probability of detection may not be an effective way of improving the performance of sonar system operators.

Not All Information Is Equal: Effects of Disclosing Different Types of Likelihood Information on Trust, Compliance and Reliance, and Task Performance in Human-Automation Teaming

“…At last, consistent with findings from previous studies, our results showed that as the automated threat detector became more reliable, participants' trust in and dependence on the threat detector increased, and their dual-task performance improved (Neyedli et al, 2011;Walliser et al, 2016;Wang et al, 2009). conclusIon Although disclosing likelihood information has been proposed as a design solution to promote proper trust and dependence, and to enhance human-automation team performance, prior studies showed mixed results (Bagheri & Jamieson, 2004;Dzindolet et al, 2002;Fletcher et al, 2017;Walliser et al, 2016;Wang et al, 2009). The goal of this study was to experimentally examine the effects of presenting different types of likelihood information.…”

“…Some studies revealed that the likelihood information significantly helped human operators calibrate their trust, adjust their reliance and compliance behaviors, and enhance human-automation team performance (McGuirl & Sarter, 2006;Walliser, de Visser, & Shaw, 2016;Wang, Jamieson, & Hollands, 2009). Other studies, however, reported that human operators did not trust or depend on automated decision aids appropriately even when the likelihood information was disclosed (Bagheri & Jamieson, 2004;Fletcher, Bartlett, Cockshell, & McCarley, 2017). A close examination of existing literature suggests that studies use different methods to calculate the likelihood information, which potentially contribute to the mixed results.…”

“…Although not explicitly stated, these studies manipulated the positive and negative predictive values to represent the varying likelihood of true positives and true negatives given the automation responses, showing that in general, human opera-tors demonstrated higher trust in and dependence on alerts with higher likelihood (Sorkin, Kantowitz, & Kantowitz, 1988;Wiczorek & Manzey, 2014;Yang et al, 2017). Despite the above-mentioned positive evidence, Fletcher et al (2017) asked participants to view a series of simulated sonar returns and decide whether a target was present or not. However, the display of rings indicating the likelihood that a target was present, given a return signal, did not seem to improve the overall ability of participants to distinguish targets from noise.…”

Effects of reliability indicators on usage, acceptance and preference of predictive process management decision support systems

“…For example, [8] found that providing information about reliability increases awareness about the automated system, but it did not show significant effects on users' trust. [31] did not find evidence for an improvement of sonar detection tasks through providing confidence cues. Rukzio et al [91] evaluated an automated form filling form for mobile devices with reliability indicators and found that while users spent slightly more time, they committed more errors, as compared to a standard version without the reliability indicators.…”

Enhancing autonomy transparency: an option-centric rationale approach

“…Some studies revealed that likelihood information significantly helped human operators calibrate their trust and enhance human-automation team performance (McGuirl & Sarter, 2006;Walliser, de Visser, & Shaw, 2016;Wang, Jamieson, & Hollands, 2009). Other studies reported that human operators did not trust or depend on automated decision aids appropriately even when the likelihood information was disclosed (Bagheri & Jamieson, 2004;Fletcher, Bartlett, Cockshell, & McCarley, 2017). Recently, Du, Huang, and Yang (in press) proposed a framework for reconcile the mixed results and showed that not all likelihood information is equal in aiding human-autonomy team performance.…”