Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/1362550.1362615acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecceConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

The effects of time limitations on target identification

Published: 28 August 2007 Publication History

Abstract

Motivation -- Aiming at making image interpretation more efficient, we studied the effects of limiting exposure durations on performance.
Research approach -- Two psychophysical experiments were performed examining the performance of 36 expert image analysts. The targets were presented at three image quality levels.
Findings -- The results suggest that limiting the exposure duration of an image to four seconds does not impair the performance of the analysts, i.e., four seconds suffice for identification in an the image interpretation task, no matter what the quality of the image.
Research Implications -- This finding suggests that limiting the exposure duration during actual image interpretation would be beneficial since it would shorten the total amount of time needed for interpretation while not lowering the probability of correct identification.
Take away message -- Sometimes unlimited time is not necessary in order to obtain the best results. When someone is an expert at what s/he does, making a quick decision might yield equivalent outcomes

References

[1]
Beechler, R. L., Winterstein, S. H., Kamper R. M., Jeffrey T. E. (1969). A study of rapid photointerpretation methods. US-Army-BESRL-Technical-Research-Note, 1153: 76
[2]
Dunning, D., Stern, L-B., (1994). Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications via inquiries about decision processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5). 818--835.
[3]
Dunning, D., & Perretta, S. (2002). Automaticity and eyewitness accuracy: A 10- to 12-second rule for distinguishing accurate from inaccurate positive identifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 951--962.
[4]
Kahneman, D. (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice. Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697--720.
[5]
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1999). Discrepancies between normative and descriptive models of decision making and the understanding/acceptance principle. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 349--385.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ECCE '07: Proceedings of the 14th European conference on Cognitive ergonomics: invent! explore!
August 2007
334 pages
ISBN:9781847998491
DOI:10.1145/1362550
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

  • The British Computer Society
  • ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
  • SIGCHI: Specialist Interest Group in Computer-Human Interaction of the ACM
  • Interactions, the Human-Computer Interaction Specialist Group of the BCS
  • Middlesex University, London, School of Computing Science
  • European Office of Aerospace Research and Development, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, United States Air Force Research Laboratory
  • EACE: European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics
  • Brunel University, West London, Department of Information Systems and Computing

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 28 August 2007

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. identification
  2. image interpretation
  3. intuitive decision making
  4. limited exposure duration

Qualifiers

  • Poster

Conference

ECCE07
Sponsor:
ECCE07: European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2007
August 28 - 31, 2007
London, United Kingdom

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 56 of 91 submissions, 62%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 88
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 03 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media