Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the two-component inspection model in a simplified luggage search task

  • Published:
Behavior Research Methods Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Visual inspection of X-ray images of luggage is a time-pressured task that typically shows large initial training effects, but there exists a paucity of models capable of evaluating performance and speed concurrently. In the present study, visual inspection ability during learning was modeled using Drury’s two-component inspection model (TCM; Drury, 1975) in a laboratory experiment involving 12 younger (mean age = 20.8 years) and 12 older (mean age = 60.0 years) naive participants undertaking a simplified luggage search task. Model fits and assumptions were found to be reliable and accurately reflected improvement with training for decision time, although neither search nor decision components of the model individually showed a significant effect of age. The decision component of the model showed larger improvement with training than did the search component, and stopping-time policy accurately reflected the improvements found between ages and within training levels. The TCM is a useful supplement to detection theory when speed of performance is a factor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bakeman, R. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 379–384.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bolfing, A., Halbherr, T., & Schwaninger, A. (2008). How imagebased factors and human factors contribute to threat detection performance in X-ray aviation security screening. In A. Holzinger (Ed.), HCI and usability for education and work (pp. 419–438). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, V., & Poole, R. W., Jr. (2002, July). Rethinking checked-baggage screening (Policy Study 297). Los Angeles: Reason Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coren, S., & Mah, K. B. (1993). Prediction of physiological arousability: A validation of the Arousal Predisposition Scale. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 31, 215–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drury, C. G. (1975). Inspection of sheet metal materials: Model and data. Human Factors, 17, 257–265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drury, C. G. (1994). The speed-accuracy trade-off in industry. Ergonomics, 37, 747–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personality & Individual Differences, 6, 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghylin, K. M., Drury, C. G., & Schwaninger, A. (2006, July). Two-component model of security inspection: Application and findings. Paper presented at the 16th World Congress of Ergonomics, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

  • Hardmeier, D., Hofer, F., & Schwaninger, A. (2005). The X-ray object recognition test (X-ray ORT): A reliable and valid instrument for measuring visual abilities needed in X-ray screening. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual IEEE International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (pp. 189–192). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, J. E. (1979). A two-stage model of visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 319–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koller, S. M., Hardmeier, D., Michel, S., & Schwaninger, A. (2007). Investigating training and transfer effects resulting from recurrent CBT of X-ray image interpretation. In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1181–1186). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaBerge, D. A. (1962). A recruitment theory of simple behavior. Psychometrika, 27, 375–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laguna, K. D., & Babcock, R. (2000). Computer testing of memory across the adult life span. Experimental Aging Research, 26, 229–243.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Link, S. W., & Heath, R. A. (1975). A sequential theory of psychological discrimination. Psychometrika, 40, 77–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., Gale, A., Purdy, K., & Song, T. (2006). Is that a gun? The influence of features of bags and threat items on detection performance. In Contemporary Ergonomics 2006: Proceedings of the International Conference on Contemporary Ergonomics (pp. 17–22) London: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., Gale, A., & Song, T. (2007). Detection of terrorist threats in air passenger luggage: Expertise development. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual IEEE International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (pp. 301–306). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarley, J. S., Kramer, A. F., Wickens, C. D., Vidoni, E. D., & Boot, W. R. (2004). Visual skills in airport-security screening. Psychological Science, 15, 302–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morawski, T., Drury, C. G., & Karwan, M. H. (1980). Predicting search performance for multiple targets. Human Factors, 22, 707–718.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olejnik, S., & Algina, J. (2003). Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: Measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psychological Methods, 8, 434–447.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pleskac, T. J., & Busemeyer, J. (2007). A dynamic, stochastic theory of confidence, choice, and response time. In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 563–568). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff, R. (2001). Diffusion and random walk processes. In The international encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 6, pp. 3668–3673). Oxford: Pergamon.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff, R. (2006). Modeling response signal and response time data. Cognitive Psychology, 53, 195–237.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20, 873–922.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff, R., Perea, M., Colangelo, A., & Buchanan, L. (2004). A diffusion model account of normal and impaired readers. Brain & Cognition, 55, 374–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J. N. (1998). Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychological Science, 9, 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff, R., & Smith, P. L. (2004). A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 111, 333–367.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff, R., Thapar, A., & McKoon, G. (2007). Application of the diffusion model to two-choice tasks for adults 75–90 years old. Psychology & Aging, 22, 56–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff, R., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2002). Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: Approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 438–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riegelnig, J., & Schwaninger, A. (2006). The influence of age and gender on detection performance and the criterion in X-ray screening. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Air Transportation (pp. 403–407). Belgrade: ICRAT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwaninger, A., Bolfing, A., Halbherr, T., Helman, S., Belyavin, A., & Hay, L. (2008). The impact of image based factors and training on threat detection performance in X-ray screening. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Research in Air Transportation (pp. 317–324). Fairfax, VA: ICRAT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwaninger, A., Hardmeier, D., & Hofer, F. (2004). Measuring visual abilities and visual knowledge of aviation security screeners. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual IEEE International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (pp. 258–264). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwaninger, A., & Hofer, F. (2004). Evaluation of CBT for increasing threat detection performance in X-ray screening. In K. Morgan & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Advances in learning, commerce and security (pp. 147–156). Southampton, England: WIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwaninger, A., Hofer, F., & Wetter, O. E. (2007). Adaptive computer-based training increases on the job performance of X-ray screeners. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual IEEE International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (pp. 117–124). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwaninger, A., Michel, S., & Bolfing, A. (2007). A statistical approach for image difficulty estimation in X-ray screening using image measurements. Applied Perception in Graphics & Visualization, 253, 123–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, W. (1993). A diffusion model of early visual search: Theoretical analysis and experimental results. Psychological Research, 55, 200–207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, M., & Singh, S. (2004). Image segmentation optimisation for X-ray images of airline luggage. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Homeland Security and Personal Safety (pp. 10–17). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. L. (2000). Stochastic dynamic models of response time and accuracy: A foundational primer. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 408–463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. L., & Ratcliff, R. (2004). Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions. Trends in Neurosciences, 27, 161–168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. L., & Vickers, D. (1988). The accumulator model of two-choice discrimination. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 32, 135–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R. E., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Adults. Menlo Park, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spitz, G., & Drury, C. G. (1978). Inspection of sheet materials: Test of model predictions. Human Factors, 20, 521–528.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, A., Rothermund, K., & Voss, J. (2004). Interpreting the parameters of the diffusion model: An empirical validation. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1206–1220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wald, A. (1947). Sequential analysis. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M.-J., Lin, S.-C., & Drury, C. G. (1997). Training for strategy in visual search. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 20, 101–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickelgren, W. A. (1977). Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics. Acta Psychologica, 41, 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiegmann, D., McCarley, J. S., Kramer, A. F., & Wickens, C. D. (2006). Age and automation interact to influence performance of a simulated luggage screening task. Aviation, Space, & Environmental Medicine, 77, 825–831.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Clare Anderson

    Present address: Division of Sleep Medicine, Brigham Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Loughborough University, Loughborough, England

    Alan W. J. Wales, Clare Anderson, Katherine L. Jones & James A. Horne

  2. Visual Cognition Research Group, c/o CASRA/APSS, University of Zurich, Thurgauerstr. 39, 8050, Zurich, Switzerland

    Alan W. J. Wales & Adrian Schwaninger

Authors
  1. Alan W. J. Wales
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Clare Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katherine L. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Adrian Schwaninger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James A. Horne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This study was supported by a research grant from the Economic and Social Research Council, U.K., Grant RES-000-23-1583.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wales, A.W.J., Anderson, C., Jones, K.L. et al. Evaluating the two-component inspection model in a simplified luggage search task. Behavior Research Methods 41, 937–943 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.3.937

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.3.937

Keywords

Search

Navigation