Target Detection and Identification Performance Using an Automatic Target Detection System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigated the effects of automatic target detection (ATD) on the detection and identification performance of soldiers. BACKGROUND: Prior studies have shown that highlighting targets can aid their detection. We provided soldiers with ATD that was more likely to detect one target identity than another, potentially acting as an implicit identification aid. METHOD: Twenty-eight soldiers detected and identified simulated human targets in an immersive virtual environment with and without ATD. Task difficulty was manipulated by varying scene illumination (day, night). The ATD identification bias was also manipulated (hostile bias, no bias, and friendly bias). We used signal detection measures to treat the identification results. RESULTS: ATD presence improved detection performance, especially under high task difficulty (night illumination). Identification sensitivity was greater for cued than uncued targets. The identification decision criterion for cued targets varied with the ATD identification bias but showed a "sluggish beta" effect. CONCLUSION: ATD helps soldiers detect and identify targets. The effects of biased ATD on identification should be considered with respect to the operational context. APPLICATION: Less-than-perfectly-reliable ATD is a useful detection aid for dismounted soldiers. Disclosure of known ATD identification bias to the operator may aid the identification process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".