Fault mix and inspection performance

Megaw, E. D.; Alexander, Chloe; Richardson, James P.

doi:10.1080/00207547908919606

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Comparison of these findings with those of previous signal-detection investigations is not a simple matter. Some studies suggest that discriminability is impaired when signal type is varied within sessions (e.g., Craig, 1979Craig, , 1981Megaw, Alexander, & Richardson, 1979), but others do not (e.g., Fox & Haslegrave, 1969;Sheehan & Drury, 1971). Consistent with the data of S16 and S17, however, there is evidence that within-session manipulation of trial types disrupts the correlation between signal probability and discriminability (Craig, 1979(Craig, , 1981.…”

Section: Methods Subjects and Apparatussupporting

confidence: 75%

Bias in Self‐evaluation: Signal Probability Effects

Critchfield

1994

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments examined apparent signal probability effects in simple verbal self-reports. After each trial of a delayed matching-to-sample task, young adults pressed either a "yes" or a "no" button to answer a computer-presented query about whether the most recent choice met a point contingency requiring both speed and accuracy. A successful matching-to-sample choice served as the "signal" in a signal-detection analysis of self-reports. Difficulty of matching to sample, and thus signal probability, was manipulated via the number of nonmatching sample and comparison stimuli. In Experiment 1, subjects exhibited a bias (log b) for reporting matching-to-sample success when success was frequent, and no bias or a bias for reporting failure when success was infrequent. Contingencies involving equal conditional probabilities of point consequences for "I succeeded" and "I failed" reports had no systematic effect on this pattern. Experiment 2 found signal probability effects to be evident regardless of whether referent-response difficulty was manipulated in different conditions or within sessions. These findings indicate that apparent signal probability effects in self-report bias that were observed in previous studies probably were not an artifact of contingencies intended to improve self-report accuracy or of the means of manipulating signal probability. The findings support an analogy between simple self-reports and psychophysical judgments and bolster the conclusion of Critchfield (1993) that signal probability effects can influence simple self-reports much as they do reports about external stimuli in psychophysical experiments.

show abstract

Section: Methods Subjects and Apparatussupporting

confidence: 75%

Bias in Self‐evaluation: Signal Probability Effects

Critchfield

1994

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fox and Haslegrave 1969), fault mix (e.g. Megaw et al 1978, Gallwey 1982, viewing area (e.g. Buck 1975), pacing (e.g.…”

Section: Human Inspectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theoretical issues in the design of visual inspection systems

Jiang

Gramopadhye

Melloy

2004

Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this review essay is to both chronicle and analyse literature in the area of visual inspection. Classical as well as contemporary papers are included to describe both the historical development and the state of the art of visual inspection theories and technologies. Human operators, despite well-documented problems, often perform visual inspection. While supervized machine systems obviate some of the problems associated with human inspectors, other problems still exist. In particular, accounting for a supervisor's perception of a machine's performance (as gauged, e.g. by trust) and consequent actions. The difficulties associated with these two alternatives have led to the emergence of a third alternative: collaborative human/machine or hybrid systems, which combine the advantages of both alternatives-in theory. However, in practice, how to best distribute the functions between a human and machine, in a dynamic environment in real time, is problematic. Moreover, a human's perceptions of its counterpart's performance remain an issue. These unresolved problems are subjects for future research. In the interim, the alternatives are critiqued to create a basis for establishing guidelines to select the alternative that is best suited for a given situation.

show abstract

Selection tests for visual inspection on a multiple fault type task

Gallwey¹

1982

Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fault mix and inspection performance

Cited by 4 publications

References 25 publications

Bias in Self‐evaluation: Signal Probability Effects

Bias in Self‐evaluation: Signal Probability Effects

Theoretical issues in the design of visual inspection systems

Selection tests for visual inspection on a multiple fault type task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About