核过程控制中的置信度评级:一项简化任务的初步研究

Alexandra Fernandes, M. Eitrheim, H. Svengren
{"title":"核过程控制中的置信度评级:一项简化任务的初步研究","authors":"Alexandra Fernandes, M. Eitrheim, H. Svengren","doi":"10.1145/2970930.2970954","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we describe a pilot study where we explore the potential of self-rated confidence judgments in the context of control room human performance evaluation. Response time, accuracy, and confidence data were obtained in a simplified task in a simulator environment of a nuclear control room. Licensed operators were presented with blocks of questions regarding specific images portraying recognizable displays with relevant process information -- after answering the primary task they were requested to evaluate their confidence in the response. The images included either benchmark (e.g. numerical values) or innovative (e.g. numerical values plus graphs and figures) design features. Overall results show that: a) there is not a complete correspondence between response accuracy and confidence ratings; b) participants took longer to reply to the confidence ratings when answers to the primary task were incorrect; c) level of confidence seems to be discriminative, with the innovative displays showcasing higher levels of certainty.","PeriodicalId":93284,"journal":{"name":"ECCE ... : proceedings of the ... European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Confidence Ratings in Nuclear Process Control: A Pilot Study with a Simplified Task\",\"authors\":\"Alexandra Fernandes, M. Eitrheim, H. Svengren\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2970930.2970954\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper we describe a pilot study where we explore the potential of self-rated confidence judgments in the context of control room human performance evaluation. Response time, accuracy, and confidence data were obtained in a simplified task in a simulator environment of a nuclear control room. Licensed operators were presented with blocks of questions regarding specific images portraying recognizable displays with relevant process information -- after answering the primary task they were requested to evaluate their confidence in the response. The images included either benchmark (e.g. numerical values) or innovative (e.g. numerical values plus graphs and figures) design features. Overall results show that: a) there is not a complete correspondence between response accuracy and confidence ratings; b) participants took longer to reply to the confidence ratings when answers to the primary task were incorrect; c) level of confidence seems to be discriminative, with the innovative displays showcasing higher levels of certainty.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93284,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ECCE ... : proceedings of the ... European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ECCE ... : proceedings of the ... European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2970930.2970954\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ECCE ... : proceedings of the ... European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2970930.2970954","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本文中,我们描述了一项试点研究,在该研究中,我们探索了自评自信判断在控制室人类绩效评估中的潜力。在核控制室模拟环境中,通过简化任务获得响应时间、精度和置信度数据。获得许可的操作人员被提出了一些问题,这些问题是关于描绘可识别显示的特定图像以及相关的过程信息的,在回答了主要任务之后,他们被要求评估他们对回答的信心。这些图像包括基准(例如数值)或创新(例如数值加上图形和数字)设计特征。总体结果表明:a)回答准确性与置信度评级之间不完全对应;B)当主要任务的答案不正确时,参与者需要更长的时间来回答信心评级;C)信心水平似乎是有区别的,创新的展示显示出更高的确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Confidence Ratings in Nuclear Process Control: A Pilot Study with a Simplified Task
In this paper we describe a pilot study where we explore the potential of self-rated confidence judgments in the context of control room human performance evaluation. Response time, accuracy, and confidence data were obtained in a simplified task in a simulator environment of a nuclear control room. Licensed operators were presented with blocks of questions regarding specific images portraying recognizable displays with relevant process information -- after answering the primary task they were requested to evaluate their confidence in the response. The images included either benchmark (e.g. numerical values) or innovative (e.g. numerical values plus graphs and figures) design features. Overall results show that: a) there is not a complete correspondence between response accuracy and confidence ratings; b) participants took longer to reply to the confidence ratings when answers to the primary task were incorrect; c) level of confidence seems to be discriminative, with the innovative displays showcasing higher levels of certainty.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信