1 / 25

The Effects of Display Type on Operator Decisions and Confidence

The Effects of Display Type on Operator Decisions and Confidence. Mike Oliver 16.422. Summary. Introduction Motivation for research Research method Experimental results Conclusions and questions. Introduction. How does the display of information affect Decisions Confidence

swaantje-grevink
Download Presentation

The Effects of Display Type on Operator Decisions and Confidence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Effects of Display Type on Operator Decisions and Confidence • Mike Oliver • 16.422

  2. Summary • Introduction • Motivation for research • Research method • Experimental results • Conclusions and questions

  3. Introduction • How does the display of information affect • Decisions • Confidence • Military context • Radar displays • Command and control centers

  4. Motivation for Research • System Complexity • F/A-18 Contact ID • Often wrong • No display of sensor confidence • Combat Information Center (CIC) • Scattered input sources

  5. F/A F/A-18E/F Cockpit See image at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/fa-18-ef-cockpit.jpg.

  6. Combat Information Center (Gaston, 2003) 031125-N-0119G-002 Arabian Gulf (Nov. 25, 2003) --Operations Specialist 1st Class Derrick L. Johnston from Meadville, Pa., (left) tracks interceptions of aircraft and reports them to the Tactical Actions Officer (TAO), Lt. Cmdr. Michael J. Yager from Troy, N.Y., (right) in the Combat Direction Center (CDC). CDC is the nerve center of the nuclear powered aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise (CVN 65). This is where information is collected, processed, displayed, evaluated, and disseminated from sources outside and inside the ship. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate Rob Gaston. (RELEASED) (Pendergrass, 2003) 030305-N-3235P-522 At sea aboard USS San Jacinto (CG 56) Mar. 5, 2003 --Fire Controlman Joshua L. Tillman along with three other Fire Controlmen, man the ship’s launch control watch station in the Combat Information Center (CIC) aboard the guided missile cruiser during a Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) training exercise. San Jacinto is deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 1st Class Michael W. Pendergrass. (RELEASED)

  7. What Information is Important? • What is the contact? • Friendly • Hostile • How likely is that correct? • Confidence

  8. Single Display • Include all sources of information • Display each source’s confidence • Hostile confidence • Friendly confidence • Combine display

  9. Semi--Structured Model Main Display Sensor 1 Sensor 2 Sensor Operator 1 Sensor Operator 2 Commander Human 1 Warfare Officer Intel Officer Human 2 (Hansman, 2000?)

  10. Semi--Structured Model Main Display Sensor 1 Sensor 2 Commander Human 1 Confidence Display Human 2 (Hansman, 2000?)

  11. Concept of Research • Improve decision accuracy • Information restriction (Tabatabaei, 2002) • Steer operator towards a preferred decision • Change decision maker confidence • Improve • Reduce

  12. Research Method • Create conceptual display • 2 human inputs • 2 sensor inputs • Devise different scenarios • Vary confidence • Friendly • Hostile • Ambiguous

  13. Research Method (cont’d) • 45 different scenarios • 22 subjects • 14 officers • 5 ROTC Midshipmen • 3 civilians • Classify contact • Provide confidence level

  14. Research Matrix

  15. Sample Displays Hostile Combine Friendly Human #1 Human #1 Human #1 Human #2 Human #2 Human #2 Sensor #1 Sensor #1 Sensor #1 Sensor #2 Sensor #2 Sensor #2

  16. Questionnaire • Which display setup did you prefer when making your decision? Why? • What additional information did you feel would have been beneficial if included in the display? • Did you tend to favor the human or sensor inputs?

  17. Operator Decisions Hostile Uncertain Friendly Contact classification Hostile Combine Friendly Friendly Ambiguous Hostile Secnario Type

  18. Operator Decisions Hostile Uncertain Friendly Contact classification Hostile Combine Friendly Linear. (Hostile) Linear. (Combine Linear. (Friendly ) Friendly Ambiguous Hostile Secnario Type

  19. Confidence Confidence Level Hostile Combine Friendly Friendly Ambiguous Hostile Secnario Type

  20. Confidence Confidence Level Hostile Combine Friendly Poly. (Friendly ) Poly. (Combine) Poly. (Hostile) Friendly Ambiguous Hostile Secnario Type

  21. Analysis • ANOVA • Decision • Well below 0.01 • Confidence • 0.035 for display type • <0.01 for scenario type

  22. Questionnaire Response • All but 1 subject preferred combine display • All available information • Additional information • Numeric percentage • Timeliness of info • Human vs. Sensor • Split equally

  23. Conclusions • Display type matters • 30% bias • Combine display • Accuracy • Confidence

  24. The Effects of Display Type on Operator Decisions and Confidence • Mike Oliver • 16.422

  25. References • Gaston, R. (2003). US Navy Photo. Navy NewsStand. Retrieved 17 February 2004 from http://www.news.navy.mil/. • GlobalSecurity. (2003). Retrieved 03 May 2004 from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military. • Hansman, R.J., and Kaliardos, W.N. (2000?). Semi-Structured Decision Processes. Retrieved 17 February 2004 from http://stellar.mit.edu/S/course/16/sp04/16.422. • Pendergrass, M.W. (2003). Navy NewsStand. Retrieved 17 February 2004 from http://www.news.navy.mil/. • Tabatabaei, M. “An Experimental Analysis of Decision Channeling by Restrictive Information Display,”in Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2002. Retrieved 10MAR2004 from http://libproxy.mit.edu:8084/cqi-bin/fulltext/99017717/PDFSTART.

More Related