XRIndex: a brief screening tool for individual differences in security threat detection in x-ray images

Abstract

X-ray imaging is a cost-effective technique at security checkpoints that typically require the presence of human operators. We have previously shown that self-reported attention to detail can predict threat detection performance with small-vehicle x-ray images (Rusconi et al., 2012). Here, we provide evidence for the generality of such a link by having a large sample of naïve participants screen more typical dual-energy x-ray images of hand luggage. The results show that the Attention to Detail score from the autism-spectrum quotient (AQ) questionnaire (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001) is a linear predictor of threat detection accuracy. We then develop and fine-tune a novel self-report scale for security screening: the XRIndex, which improves on the Attention to Detail scale for predictive power and opacity to interpretation. The XRIndex is not redundant with any of the Big Five personality traits. We validate the XRIndex against security x-ray images with an independent sample of untrained participants and suggest that the XRIndex may be a useful aid for the identification of suitable candidates for professional security training with a focus on x-ray threat detection. Further studies are needed to determine whether this can also apply to trained professionals.

Systemizers Are Better Code-Breakers: Self-Reported Systemizing Predicts Code-Breaking Performance in Expert Hackers and Naïve Participants

“…Hackers reported significantly higher systemizing and attention to detail than non-hackers. We found a positive relation between self-reported systemizing (but not attention to detail) and code-breaking skills in both hackers and non-hackers, whereas attention to detail (but not systemizing) was related with performance in the X-ray screening task in both groups, as previously reported with naïve participants (Rusconi et al, 2015 ). We discuss the theoretical and translational implications of our findings.…”

“…We used the same stimuli and security X-ray screening task as described in Rusconi et al ( 2015 , pp. 3–6).…”

“…In line with this reasoning, we would expect these individuals to be particularly suited to the hacking job. Moreover, because the traits that co-occur in autism-spectrum disorders may be the expression of independent sets of genes (Happé et al, 2006 ), neurotypical individuals offer the opportunity to study detail-focus in dissociation from social/communication impairments, narrow interests, and repetitive behaviors (see also Rusconi et al, 2012 , 2015 ). A practical way to measure autistic traits in the general population is via self-reports, for example by asking individuals to rate how well a series of statements tapping domains in which people with autism deviate from the neurotypical population applies to their own cognitive and behavioral profile.…”

“…Based on Baron-Cohen et al's ( 2009 ) systemizing model, we predicted that SQ would show a robust relation with hacking skills, whereas self-reported attention to detail—and possibly the AQ score—may be more loosely related to them (as detail focus or any other traits measured by the AQ may not suffice to develop systemizing skills). The security X-ray screening task was included as a specificity-control task because it bears no obvious relation to systemizing but it has been previously connected to self-reported attention to detail (Rusconi et al, 2015 ). We thus predicted a double dissociation between attention to detail and SQ , whereby the former is more related to performance in the X-ray image interpretation and the latter to performance in the hacking challenge; alternatively, attention to detail could be related to both the X-ray image interpretation task and the hacking challenge, whereas systemizing could be more specifically related to the hacking challenge.…”

Testosterone and attention deficits as possible mechanisms underlying impaired emotion recognition in intimate partner violence perpetrators

“…In fact, this attention deficit might explain not only the impaired emotion decoding process but also the executive domain deficits defined as a worse performance in tests like the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, which has been previously reported in IPV perpetrators (Gracia et al, 2015;Romero-Martínez, Lila, Catalá-Miñana et al, 2013;Romero-Martínez, Lila, Sariñana-González et al, 2013;. Nonetheless, it is important to note that in our research we analyzed attention deficits with self-reports, although these subscales have been employed as successful inattention measures in previous studies in several populations (Polderman et al, 2013;Rusconi, Ferri, Viding, & Mitchener-Nissen, 2015;Sizoo et al, 2009). For this reason future studies should consider, in addition to self-reports, more implicit measures as well as neuropsychological tests in order to reinforce the value of the measurements.…”