The present work examined the effects of two types of decision support systems in a simulated luggage screening task: An input aid and an output aid. An input aid supports an operator’s information gathering. An output aid supports decision making and action selection. A Time-Accuracy Function (TAF) analysis was applied to isolate processing time from performance asymptote, which conventional performance measures such as sensitivity and response time do not distinguish one from the other. Sixty participants performed a luggage screening task unaided (manual condition), with the assistance of an input aid (spatial aid), and with the assistance of an output aid (decision aid) across different stimulus exposure durations of 250 ms, 500 ms, 1000 ms, 2000 ms, or 3000 ms. Participants were asked to judge the presence of a knife in each of the bags and either “stop” the bag or “pass” the bag. Reliability of the automated aids was 90% in Experiment 1 and 60% in Experiment 2. Experiment 1 showed that sensitivity increased with the assistance of both the input and the output aids as the stimulus exposure duration increased. The performance improvement was greater for the input aid than the output aid condition. Though processing times did not differ across the conditions, asymptotic performance level was higher when participants had the assistance of the input aid compared to the unaided condition. Experiment 2 and cross-experimental analysis demonstrated that the unreliable aids eliminated the benefit of the reliable aids. TAF analysis further showed that, although asymptotic performance can differ, processing times can remain constant regardless of DOA. The results imply that the input aid elevates asymptotic performance without influencing processing times, perhaps allowing operators to crosscheck their decisions within the restricted area of the search field identified by the aid. The present findings are inconsistent with the lumberjack hypothesis (Onnasch et al., 2013) and future research directions are provided.
","abstract_html":"<p>The present work examined the effects of two types of decision support systems in a simulated luggage screening task: An input aid and an output aid. An input aid supports an operator’s information gathering. An output aid supports decision making and action selection. A Time-Accuracy Function (TAF) analysis was applied to isolate processing time from performance asymptote, which conventional performance measures such as sensitivity and response time do not distinguish one from the other. Sixty participants performed a luggage screening task unaided (manual condition), with the assistance of an input aid (spatial aid), and with the assistance of an output aid (decision aid) across different stimulus exposure durations of 250 ms, 500 ms, 1000 ms, 2000 ms, or 3000 ms. Participants were asked to judge the presence of a knife in each of the bags and either “stop” the bag or “pass” the bag. Reliability of the automated aids was 90% in Experiment 1 and 60% in Experiment 2. Experiment 1 showed that sensitivity increased with the assistance of both the input and the output aids as the stimulus exposure duration increased. The performance improvement was greater for the input aid than the output aid condition. Though processing times did not differ across the conditions, asymptotic performance level was higher when participants had the assistance of the input aid compared to the unaided condition. Experiment 2 and cross-experimental analysis demonstrated that the unreliable aids eliminated the benefit of the reliable aids. TAF analysis further showed that, although asymptotic performance can differ, processing times can remain constant regardless of DOA. The results imply that the input aid elevates asymptotic performance without influencing processing times, perhaps allowing operators to crosscheck their decisions within the restricted area of the search field identified by the aid. The present findings are inconsistent with the lumberjack hypothesis (Onnasch et al., 2013) and future research directions are provided.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Liechty, Molly M."],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Yusuke Yamani","Holly Handley","Jing Chen"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2019,"date_issued":"2019-10-01T07:00:00Z","date_published":"2019-10-01T07:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:35:30Z","subjects":["Automated aid","Automation","Degrees","Human factors","Human Factors Psychology","Industrial and Organizational Psychology"],"languages":[],"rights":["In Copyright. URI: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).
"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["9781392612538"],"render_values":[{"text":"9781392612538","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/psychology_etds/333","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Yusuke Yamani","Holly Handley","Jing Chen"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Liechty, Molly M."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2020-01-10T08:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Automated aid","Automation","Degrees","Human factors","Human Factors Psychology","Industrial and Organizational Psychology"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright. URI: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).
"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["9781392612538","https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/psychology_etds/333"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["The present work examined the effects of two types of decision support systems in a simulated luggage screening task: An input aid and an output aid. An input aid supports an operator’s information gathering. An output aid supports decision making and action selection. A Time-Accuracy Function (TAF) analysis was applied to isolate processing time from performance asymptote, which conventional performance measures such as sensitivity and response time do not distinguish one from the other. Sixty participants performed a luggage screening task unaided (manual condition), with the assistance of an input aid (spatial aid), and with the assistance of an output aid (decision aid) across different stimulus exposure durations of 250 ms, 500 ms, 1000 ms, 2000 ms, or 3000 ms. Participants were asked to judge the presence of a knife in each of the bags and either “stop” the bag or “pass” the bag. Reliability of the automated aids was 90% in Experiment 1 and 60% in Experiment 2. Experiment 1 showed that sensitivity increased with the assistance of both the input and the output aids as the stimulus exposure duration increased. The performance improvement was greater for the input aid than the output aid condition. Though processing times did not differ across the conditions, asymptotic performance level was higher when participants had the assistance of the input aid compared to the unaided condition. Experiment 2 and cross-experimental analysis demonstrated that the unreliable aids eliminated the benefit of the reliable aids. TAF analysis further showed that, although asymptotic performance can differ, processing times can remain constant regardless of DOA. The results imply that the input aid elevates asymptotic performance without influencing processing times, perhaps allowing operators to crosscheck their decisions within the restricted area of the search field identified by the aid. The present findings are inconsistent with the lumberjack hypothesis (Onnasch et al., 2013) and future research directions are provided.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The Effect of Differing Degrees of Automation and Reliability on Simulated Luggage Screening Performance"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Yusuke Yamani","Holly Handley","Jing Chen"],"dc:creator":["Liechty, Molly M."],"dc:date.available":["2020-01-10T08:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["The present work examined the effects of two types of decision support systems in a simulated luggage screening task: An input aid and an output aid. An input aid supports an operator’s information gathering. An output aid supports decision making and action selection. A Time-Accuracy Function (TAF) analysis was applied to isolate processing time from performance asymptote, which conventional performance measures such as sensitivity and response time do not distinguish one from the other. Sixty participants performed a luggage screening task unaided (manual condition), with the assistance of an input aid (spatial aid), and with the assistance of an output aid (decision aid) across different stimulus exposure durations of 250 ms, 500 ms, 1000 ms, 2000 ms, or 3000 ms. Participants were asked to judge the presence of a knife in each of the bags and either “stop” the bag or “pass” the bag. Reliability of the automated aids was 90% in Experiment 1 and 60% in Experiment 2. Experiment 1 showed that sensitivity increased with the assistance of both the input and the output aids as the stimulus exposure duration increased. The performance improvement was greater for the input aid than the output aid condition. Though processing times did not differ across the conditions, asymptotic performance level was higher when participants had the assistance of the input aid compared to the unaided condition. Experiment 2 and cross-experimental analysis demonstrated that the unreliable aids eliminated the benefit of the reliable aids. TAF analysis further showed that, although asymptotic performance can differ, processing times can remain constant regardless of DOA. The results imply that the input aid elevates asymptotic performance without influencing processing times, perhaps allowing operators to crosscheck their decisions within the restricted area of the search field identified by the aid. The present findings are inconsistent with the lumberjack hypothesis (Onnasch et al., 2013) and future research directions are provided.
"],"dc:identifier":["9781392612538","https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/psychology_etds/333"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright. URI: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).
"],"dc:subject":["Automated aid","Automation","Degrees","Human factors","Human Factors Psychology","Industrial and Organizational Psychology"],"dc:title":["The Effect of Differing Degrees of Automation and Reliability on Simulated Luggage Screening Performance"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:35:30Z"}