Transparency of Automated Combat Classification
We present an empirical study where the effects of three levels of system transparency of an automated target classification aid on fighter pilots’ performance and initial trust in the system were evaluated. The levels of transparency consisted of (1) only presenting text–based information regarding the specific object (without any automated support), (2) accompanying the text-based information with an automatically generated object class suggestion and (3) adding the incorporated sensor values with associated (uncertain) historic values in graphical form. The results show that the pilots needed more time to make a classification decision when being provided with display condition 2 and 3 than display condition 1. However, the number of correct classifications and the operators’ trust ratings were the highest when using display condition 3. No difference in the pilots’ decision confidence was found, yet slightly higher workload was reported when using display condition 3. The questionnaire results report on the pilots’ general opinion that an automatic classification aid would help them make better and more confident decisions faster, having trained with the system for a longer period.
KeywordsClassification support automation transparency uncertainty visualization fighter pilots
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.British Ministry of Defence: Military Aircraft Accident Summary: Aircraft accident to Royal Air Force Tornado GR MK4A ZG710. Tech. rep. (2004)Google Scholar
- 5.Gelsema, S.: The desirability of a nato-central database for non-cooperative target recognition of aircraft. In: Proceedings of the RTO SET Symposium on Target Identification and Recognition Using RF Systems, Oslo, Norway, October 11-13 (2004)Google Scholar
- 6.Irandoust, H., Benaskeur, A., Kabanza, F., Bellefeuille, P.: A mixed-initiative advisory system for threat evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium: The Evolution of C2, Santa Monica, California, USA (2010)Google Scholar
- 8.de Jong, J., Burghouts, G., Hiemstra, H., te Marvelde, A., van Norden, W., Schutte, K.: Hold your fire!: Preventing fratricide in the dismounted soldier domain. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium: C2 for Complex Endeavours, Bellevue, WA, USA (2008)Google Scholar
- 9.Krüger, M., Kratzke, N.: Monitoring of reliability in bayesian identification. In: 12th International Conference on Information Fusion, FUSION 2009, pp. 1241–1248. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
- 11.Liebhaber, M., Feher, B.: Air threat assessment: Research, model, and display guidelines. In: The Proceedings of the 2002 Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (2002)Google Scholar
- 16.Paradis, S., Benaskeur, A., Oxenham, M., Cutler, P.: Threat evaluation and weapons allocation in network-centric warfare. In: 8th International Conference on Information Fusion, vol. 2, pp. 1078–1085. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
- 18.Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. Wiley, New York (2002)Google Scholar