The Effect of Informing Participants of the Response Bias of an Automated Target Recognition System on Trust and Reliance Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveTo determine how changing and informing a user of the false alarm (FA) rate of an automated target recognition (ATR) system affects the user’s trust in and reliance on the system and their performance during an underwater mine detection task.BackgroundATR systems are designed to operate using a high sensitivity and a liberal decision criterion to reduce the risk of the ATR system missing a target. A high number of FAs in general may lead to a decrease in operator trust and reliance.MethodsParticipants viewed sonar images and were asked to identify mines in the images. They performed the task without ATR and with ATR at a lower and higher FA rate. The participants were split into two groups—one informed and one uninformed of the changed FA rate. Trust and/or confidence in detecting mines was measured after each block.ResultsWhen not informed of the FA rate, the FA rate had a significant effect on the participants’ response bias. Participants had greater trust in the system and a more consistent response bias when informed of the FA rate. Sensitivity and confidence were not influenced by disclosure of the FA rate but were significantly worse for the high FA rate condition compared with performance without the ATR.Conclusion and applicationInforming a user of the FA rate of automation may positively influence the level of trust in and reliance on the aid.
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 | 0.009 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".