U.S. patent application number 13/934012 was filed with the patent office on 2015-06-04 for method and system for certifying operators of x-ray systems.
The applicant listed for this patent is Rapiscan Systems, Inc.. Invention is credited to Khai Le, Peter Modica, Phong Nguyen.
Application Number | 20150154876 13/934012 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 39101777 |
Filed Date | 2015-06-04 |
United States Patent
Application |
20150154876 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Modica; Peter ; et
al. |
June 4, 2015 |
Method and System for Certifying Operators of X-Ray Systems
Abstract
A method and system for using Threat Imaging Projection (TIP)
technology, and the operator testing data that it generates, in
order to certify x-ray inspection system operators and thereby
assure an acceptable and uniform level of operator performance. In
a preferred configuration, the operator views x-ray images of
objects on a screening system equipped with TIP technology. When
the operator believes that a threat item image appears on the
screening system, the operator indicates such via an indicating
means. The system is capable of recording, storing and transmitting
individual operator performance data relating to proper detections,
missed detections, and false alarms, i.e., when an operator
indicates that a threat item image appears when no such image
actually appears on the screening system. The system preferably
contains a library of various threat item images, e.g., guns,
bombs, knives, etc., which are classified according to type of
threat and difficulty of detection.
Inventors: |
Modica; Peter; (Matawan,
NJ) ; Le; Khai; (Huntington Beach, CA) ;
Nguyen; Phong; (Tustin, CA) |
|
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
Rapiscan Systems, Inc. |
Torrance |
CA |
US |
|
|
Family ID: |
39101777 |
Appl. No.: |
13/934012 |
Filed: |
July 2, 2013 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
13430995 |
Mar 27, 2012 |
8498376 |
|
|
13934012 |
|
|
|
|
13023516 |
Feb 8, 2011 |
|
|
|
13430995 |
|
|
|
|
12365294 |
Feb 4, 2009 |
7903783 |
|
|
13023516 |
|
|
|
|
11773735 |
Jul 5, 2007 |
7505557 |
|
|
12365294 |
|
|
|
|
11343747 |
Jan 30, 2006 |
7257189 |
|
|
11773735 |
|
|
|
|
10067508 |
Feb 4, 2002 |
|
|
|
11343747 |
|
|
|
|
60308510 |
Jul 27, 2001 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
378/57 ;
434/219 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G01V 5/0016 20130101;
G09B 19/00 20130101; G06Q 10/06398 20130101; G09B 19/003 20130101;
G09B 5/00 20130101; G09B 5/02 20130101 |
International
Class: |
G09B 5/02 20060101
G09B005/02; G09B 19/00 20060101 G09B019/00; G01V 5/00 20060101
G01V005/00 |
Claims
1. (canceled)
2. (canceled)
3. (canceled)
4. (canceled)
5. (canceled)
6. (canceled)
7. (canceled)
8. (canceled)
9. (canceled)
10. (canceled)
11. (canceled)
12. (canceled)
13. (canceled)
14. (canceled)
15. (canceled)
16. (canceled)
17. (canceled)
18. (canceled)
19. (canceled)
20. (canceled)
21. (canceled)
22. (canceled)
23. (canceled)
24. (canceled)
25. (canceled)
26. (canceled)
27. (canceled)
28. (canceled)
29. (canceled)
30. (canceled)
31. (canceled)
32. (canceled)
33. (canceled)
34. (canceled)
35. (canceled)
36. (canceled)
37. (canceled)
38. (canceled)
39. (canceled)
40. (canceled)
41. (canceled)
42. (canceled)
43. (canceled)
44. (canceled)
45. (canceled)
46. (canceled)
47. (canceled)
48. (canceled)
49. (canceled)
50. (canceled)
51. A method for evaluating a performance of a security inspection
system operator at a checkpoint, comprising: determining first
values indicative of a number of people passing through said
checkpoint and storing said first values in a non-transitory
computer readable medium; determining second values indicative of a
number of detections made by a metal detector at said checkpoint
and storing said second values in a non-transitory computer
readable medium; determining third values indicative of
certification information specific to said operator and storing
said third values in a non-transitory computer readable medium;
and, evaluating the performance of said operator based on said
first, second, and third values using a plurality of programmatic
instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable
medium.
52. The method of claim 51 further comprising the step of
determining fourth values indicative of a number of detections made
by a plurality of detection devices at said checkpoint and storing
said fourth values in a non-transitory computer readable
medium.
53. The method of claim 52 wherein said performance of said
operator is evaluated based on said first, second, third, and
fourth values.
54. The method of claim 51 further comprising the step of assessing
a plurality of threat item images stored on a non-transitory
computer readable medium using a plurality of programmatic
instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium to
display an X-ray image of at least one threat item image in
combination with a baggage item, wherein said display provides the
appearance that said threat item is located inside of said baggage
item.
55. The method of claim 54 further comprising the step of receiving
an input from said operator using a plurality of programmatic
instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium,
wherein said input indicates whether the operator has identified
said at least one threat image on the display.
56. The method of claim 55 further comprising the step of using a
plurality of programmatic instructions stored on a non-transitory
computer readable medium to determine whether said operator has
detected a predetermined percentage of said threat item images and,
depending on said calculation, producing a certification score.
57. The method of claim 54, wherein said third values indicative of
certification information are determined by associating an
orientation angle of each threat item image with a detection
difficulty level.
58. The method of claim 57, wherein said threat item images include
images of at least one of bombs, knives, guns, or improvised
explosive devices.
59. The method of claim 51 further comprising the step of using an
X-ray machine located at the checkpoint to scan baggage possessed
by an individual passing through the checkpoint and to generate an
X-ray image.
60. The method of claim 59 further comprising the steps of
combining the X-ray image with at least one threat item image and
displaying the combined image to said operator as said baggage
passes through said X-ray machine.
61. The method of claim 51 wherein evaluation of said operator
performance is based on a certification criteria database
containing a plurality of requirements for operator
certification.
62. The method of claim 51 further comprising the step of using a
plurality of programmatic instructions stored on a non-transitory
computer readable medium to report the evaluation of the
performance of the operator to an operator certification
authority.
63. The method of claim 51, wherein said certification information
includes any one or more of date and time of each evaluation, the
type of image and image difficulty presented to said operator, said
operator's test results, identifying information of said operator,
and location of testing.
64. A method for evaluating performance of a security inspection
system operator at a checkpoint, comprising: scanning baggage
possessed by an individual passing through said checkpoint using a
scanning system; generating an X-ray image; determining first
values indicative of a number of people passing through said
checkpoint and storing said first values in a non-transitory
computer readable medium; determining second values indicative of a
number of detections made by a metal detector at said checkpoint
and storing said second values in a non-transitory computer
readable medium; determining third values indicative of
certification information specific to said operator and storing
said third values in a non-transitory computer readable medium;
and, evaluating the performance of said operator based on said
first, second, and third values using a plurality of programmatic
instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable
medium.
65. The method of claim 64 further comprising the step of
determining fourth values indicative of a number of detections made
by a plurality of detection devices at said checkpoint and storing
said fourth values in a non-transitory computer readable
medium.
66. The method of claim 65 wherein said performance of said
operator is evaluated based on said first, second, third, and
fourth values.
67. The method of claim 64 further comprising the step of assessing
a plurality of threat item images stored on a non-transitory
computer readable medium using a plurality of programmatic
instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium to
display an X-ray image of at least one threat item image in
combination with a baggage item, wherein said display provides the
appearance that said threat item is located inside of said baggage
item.
68. The method of claim 64 wherein evaluation of said operator
performance is based on a certification criteria database
containing a plurality of requirements for operator
certification.
69. The method of claim 64 further comprising the step of using a
plurality of programmatic instructions stored on a non-transitory
computer readable medium to report the evaluation of the
performance of the operator to an operator certification
authority.
70. The method of claim 64, wherein said certification information
includes any one or more of date and time of each evaluation, the
type of image and image difficulty presented to said operator, said
operator's test results, identifying information of said operator,
and location of testing.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE
[0001] The present application is a continuation of U.S. patent
application Ser. No. 13/430,995, filed on Mar. 27, 2012 and now
U.S. Pat. No. 8,498,376, which is a continuation of U.S. patent
application Ser. No. 13/023,516, filed on Feb. 8, 2011 and has been
abandoned, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser.
No. 12/365,294, filed on Feb. 4, 2009 and issued as U.S. Pat. No.
7,903,783, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser.
No. 11/773,735, filed on Jul. 5, 2007 and issued as U.S. Pat. No.
7,505,557, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser.
No. 11/343,747, filed on Jan. 30, 2006 and issued as U.S. Pat. No.
7,257,189, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser.
No. 10/067,508, filed on Feb. 4, 2002 and has been abandoned, which
claims priority to provisional application Ser. No. 60/308,510,
filed Jul. 27, 2001, all of which are hereby incorporated by
reference.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0002] The field of the invention generally relates to x-ray
inspection systems used for security purposes. More particularly,
the invention relates to a method and system for testing and
certifying operators of such systems.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0003] X-ray inspection systems, e.g., baggage scanners, are
commonly used to detect and prevent the passage of prohibited items
beyond a security checkpoint. Such x-ray inspection systems are
typically used at airports, courthouses and other locations where
security is necessary or desirable. These inspection systems guard
against items such as weapons and explosives from entering the
restricted area. Generally, objects are placed on a conveyor and
pass through the system at which time they are x-rayed. An x-ray
image of the object appears on a monitor and is viewed by an
operator.
[0004] Regardless of the technology used in x-ray inspection
systems, the performance of such systems in large part relies on
the vigilance and skillfulness of the system operators who examine
x-ray images of the contents of baggage on the system's video
monitor. In turn, the vigilance and skillfulness of the system
operators generally depend on the amount and type of training they
receive. This is very important since operator performance is
critical to the overall integrity of security inspection
systems.
[0005] Traditional methods of training and certifying system
operators have involved training and testing in a classroom
environment, with the use of photographs, slide projectors and
perhaps computer-generated images. For example, photographs of
video monitor images showing a weapon or other threat have been
used to educate system operators on how a threatening object might
appear on the system video monitor. After receiving such classroom
training, system operators have then typically been tested in the
same classroom setting. However, a classroom environment for
training and testing is typically very different from the actual
setting in which operators must detect prohibited items for at
least several reasons.
[0006] First, in the classroom environment, the system operator
typically sits in a chair and looks at various photographs and
other materials. This does not accurately replicate real life
conditions whereby the system operator must continuously watch the
system's video monitor, stop and start the system and deal with
disturbances. Furthermore, real life conditions involving a steady
stream of people passing through a security checkpoint at an
airport, many of whom may be hostile because they are late for
their flights, are not typically replicated in a classroom
environment. So despite a system operator's passing a classroom
test with high marks, that is no guarantee of good performance by
that operator in the field.
[0007] Second, the classroom environment does not effectively teach
or test the operator's vigilance, i.e., focus and attention span,
over time. As noted above, the system operator's vigilance is
integral to the ongoing success of the security inspection process.
Indeed, high vigilance during the early portion of an operator's
shift during which time no threatening objects pass through
undetected does not excuse a decline in attention and focus during
the later portion of that operator's shift during which time a
threatening object passes through.
[0008] Third, other realities of classroom training further reduce
its effectiveness. To this end, classroom training and testing may
expose system operators to a smaller variety of images and threats
than the operator would see in real life situations. Furthermore,
the expense and logistics of classroom training generally result in
less training and testing than should occur.
[0009] For these and other reasons, classroom-based training and
testing is not an optimum or even reliable method of training,
testing and/or certifying the operators of x-ray inspection
systems. In view of these shortcomings, other training tools have
been developed.
[0010] One such tool is Threat Imaging Projection (TIP) technology.
With TIP technology, x-ray images of threat objects are generally
merged into the image of non-threat baggage that are displayed on
the system's monitor. The threat images are selected at random from
a library of various types of prohibited items. An operator's
performance in detecting threats, missing threats and creating
false alarms (detecting what is believed to be a threat when there
actually is no threat) are then recorded.
[0011] Initial TIP technology implementations were limited to
simply blending x-ray images of threats into the stream of baggage
images. If the operator detected the threat and activated the
appropriate control, the threat object was erased and feedback was
provided to the operator indicating that he or she had successfully
detected the threat. However, such TIP implementations never
adequately worked in the field.
[0012] For example, TIP technology could not be efficiently used at
actual checkpoints because the images generated by the TIP
technology for training purposes would generally be
indistinguishable from true threats. Where the TIP technology was
set up to be automatic, i.e., without input to help distinguish
between test and true threats, operators often reacted to test
threats as though a true threat actually existed. For example, an
operator's detecting a test threat image representing a bomb has
resulted in that operator calling a bomb squad. These types of
events resulted in large costs, delays and inconvenience. Where
human supervisors were used to overcome problems associated with
automatic testing, the testing method still proved to be cumbersome
and ineffective due to cost, logistical problems and potential
coaching of the operator by the supervisor.
[0013] More recently, a TIP process was developed that was somewhat
more successful to a limited degree. This more recent process: 1)
employed automatic testing, 2) avoided the above-mentioned costs
and delays by providing sufficient feedback to the operator to
avoid the situation where a test threat was treated as a true
threat and 3) recorded individual operator performance in detecting
threats so as to track performance over extended periods.
[0014] However, there still existed no method for using the
information provided by testing with the use of TIP technology in
order to certify operators. Indeed, varying uses and interpretation
of the data in different segments of the security inspection
industry results in varying levels of system operator proficiency
and hardly any type of uniform certification method. Accordingly,
there exists a serious need for a structured, uniform process for
certifying system operators.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0015] The current invention generally involves a method and system
for using TIP technology and the operator testing data it generates
in order to certify operators and thereby assure an acceptable and
uniform level of operator performance. More particularly, a method
and system is described in which the operator views x-ray images of
objects on a screening system equipped with TIP technology. The
system is capable of recording, storing and transmitting individual
operator performance data relating to detections, missed detections
or false alarms.
[0016] In another aspect of the invention, the method and system
provide a means to track the types of threats a system operator has
seen and detected, as well as the difficulty of the threats the
operator has seen. To this end, the system contains a library of
various threat images, e.g., guns, bombs, knives, etc., which are
classified according to type of threat and difficulty of
detection.
[0017] In another aspect of the invention, the method and system
provide a means for reporting the operator's performance in
successfully detecting test images to the appropriate authority,
e.g., civil aviation authorities, airlines and other pertinent
organizations. To this end, the system records the results of the
operator's performance in a database. These results are then
compared to the certification criteria that may be contained in
another database to determine whether or not the operator should be
certified. Results are reported to appropriate authorities or other
organizations.
[0018] In another aspect of the invention, software is provided to
accomplish the foregoing. More particularly, software is provided
to encode images and aid in their comparison to real threats.
Software is also provided such that the information contained in
the above-referenced (and other) databases may be accessed and used
for training and certifying operators.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0019] FIG. 1 is a perspective view of the system of the current
invention;
[0020] FIG. 2 is an overview schematic of the system of the current
invention;
[0021] FIG. 3 is an on-screen view of a system operations menu;
[0022] FIG. 4 is a flowchart/schematic of a preferred embodiment of
the training or certification process wherein the flow of
information to and from each element of the invention is
illustrated;
[0023] FIG. 5 is a flowchart/schematic of an alternative preferred
embodiment similar to the one in FIG. 4, except that certain
database(s), software and/or other system elements are located at a
location remote from the inspection system; and
[0024] FIG. 6, comprising parts 6-1 and 6-2, is a flowchart showing
a methodology of the software associated with the method and system
of the current invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
[0025] The preferred embodiments will now be described with respect
to the drawings. To facilitate the description, any numeral
identifying an element in one figure generally represents the same
element when used in any other figure. The configurations shown in
the figures are for illustrative purposes only, and are not
intended to limit the scope of the current invention.
[0026] A. Description of System Elements
[0027] FIG. 1 is a perspective view of an x-ray screening system 10
that includes a housing 12 containing a screening section 14
through which objects to be screened are passed. Screening section
14 may generally comprise a tunnel through which objects pass, and
may include an active area where objects are X-rayed and
tunnel-like extensions on either side of the active area. The
tunnel may reflect different cross-sectional shapes.
[0028] The housing 12 preferably includes a flat base section 16 so
that the system 10 may readily rest on a flat surface. A video
monitor 18 for displaying x-ray images of objects located inside
the screening section 14, and for displaying electronically
inserted threat item images, may be attached to a top section 20 of
the housing 12. The system 10 preferably includes a conveyor 22 for
transporting objects through the screening section 14.
[0029] An information input device or means, shown in this
embodiment as a keyboard 24, is preferably attached to a front
section 26 of the housing 12. The input means 24 preferably allows
an operator to log onto and off of the system 10, to control the
conveyor 22, to indicate when the operator believes that a threat
item image appears on the monitor 18, and/or to perform various
other functions. The input means 24 may alternatively be a
touch-screen system, wherein an operator touches images on a video
screen to perform various operations, a voice-activated system, a
mouse whereby icons are clicked onto, or any other suitable input
mechanism to facilitate performing the various functions of the
current invention. Alternatively, multiple input mechanisms may be
used in conjunction with one another to allow an operator to
perform various procedures.
[0030] The elements of system 10 may be arranged in several
different configurations, and a greater or lesser number of
elements may be used in the system 10. Accordingly, FIG. 1 is not
intended to limit the invention to the specific configuration
shown.
[0031] FIG. 2 shows a schematic view of an x-ray screening system
102 containing a video monitor 104 that displays x-ray images of
objects 108 to an operator 106. Certain elements in FIG. 2 are
generally similar to elements in FIG. 1 but may be referenced by
different numerals. Typically, objects 108 pass through system 102
on a conveyor 110. As discussed below, the current invention
involves various databases for providing, storing and transmitting
information. Existing types of databases and means for providing
communication between such databases may be used with the
invention.
[0032] The configuration shown in FIG. 2 is for illustrative
purposes only. For example, FIG. 2 depicts different databases,
software and other items separately. However, a number of these
items may be combined, e.g., one database may contain different
types of information and/or software. Accordingly, FIG. 2 is not
intended to limit the invention to the specific configuration
shown.
[0033] Screening system 102 is preferably equipped with TIP
technology 112 so that images of various prohibited items may be
electronically inserted into the normal ongoing stream of
non-threat images, e.g., passenger baggage, of objects 108 viewed
on monitor 104. The non-threat images may be images of actual
objects 108, or alternatively, may be electronically generated
images. Thus, an operator may be trained on the screening system
102 without having to use any real objects. In FIG. 2, TIP
technology 112 is simply shown as a box within screening system
102, but it will be apparent to one skilled in the art that
suitable software and electronics are associated with TIP
technology 112.
[0034] Screening system 102 preferably also includes a database 114
to store general information associated with TIP technology 112.
Database 114 may also encompass other databases discussed herein,
and to this end, FIG. 2 is for illustrative purposes only.
Screening system 102 also preferably includes a data transmission
means 116 to transmit operator performance data (and other data)
for data collection and reporting purposes. In FIG. 2, TIP database
114 and transmission means 116 are shown separately from TIP
technology 112, but these items may generally coincide.
[0035] System 102 also preferably includes TIP library 118 that may
contain images of various prohibited items such as guns, bombs,
knives, etc. TIP library 118 preferably contains a database
defining the threat types (i.e., defined as a gun, bomb, etc.) and
the difficulty associated with detecting each type of threat or
each image orientation. For example, certain types of weapons such
as Improvised Explosive Devices (IDEs) are generally considered
more difficult to detect than weapons such as handguns and will
thus have a higher difficulty rating. TIP library 118 may also
contain images of what may be thought of as ordinary items, but in
reality may be used as weapons, e.g., box cutters, personal knives,
blades for shaving, etc.
[0036] The difficulty associated with detecting a given threat may
also depend on its orientation or angle of view as projected on the
monitor 104. For example, a handgun is generally considered more
difficult to detect when viewed from behind, wherein it may appear
to be a simple rectangular piece of metal, as opposed to when
viewed from the side, wherein the well-known shape of a handgun is
more readily apparent.
[0037] It is preferred that TIP library 118 contains a sufficient
number of different certification images to prevent memorization by
the operator, which would skew any testing or certification effort.
It is also preferred that the certification images contained in TIP
library 118 be kept secret or otherwise confidential in order to
prevent operator cheating. To this end, the certification images
stored in TIP library 118 may be changed from time to time to
maintain the integrity of the certification process.
[0038] The images contained in TIP library 118 for certification
purposes are preferably approved and regulated by the appropriate
certifying body such as the FAA. In this manner, the current
invention may provide a uniform certification process for system
operators. The images are also preferably graded according to
difficulty of detection. For example, the FAA currently recognizes
various threat classes and each class is generally associated with
a certain difficulty level. As discussed in more detail below, the
invention contemplates that an operator would need to be able to
sufficiently detect images from each level of difficulty in order
to become certified.
[0039] The database in TIP library 118 also preferably defines the
type of images that the TIP capability 112 will provide for viewing
by the operator. To this end, images may generally be classified as
certification images or training images. Certification images are
generally those images used during a certification testing
procedure, a given percentage of which an operator must preferably
detect to become certified or retain certification. Training images
may be similar to certification images in appearance, and are
generally used to train operators to detect various threats.
However, training images may differ from certification images in
that they portray images of different threat objects or images of
the same threat object but viewed at a different angle or
orientation.
[0040] Certification images and training images may be kept
separately in different libraries. To this end, TIP library 118 may
contain multiple sub-libraries in which the respective types of
images are separately contained. Alternatively, two separate TIP
libraries (not shown in FIG. 2) may be maintained for this purpose.
Maintaining the training and certification images separately
preferably allows a training period or certification period to be
more readily set up.
[0041] The parameters of a given training or certification period
(referred to generally as a testing period) are preferably set by
an authorized user, such as a manager of a scanning company or an
appropriate certification authority. These parameters are generally
referred to as test scripts, because they "script" a test that will
be administered to one or more scanner operators. In a preferred
scenario, standardized test scripts may be used across the security
industry, or segments thereof.
[0042] In order to set the test scripts for a given testing period,
an authorized user logs onto the system and enters an ID and
password provided by the appropriate authorities. After the
authorized user logs on, a menu preferably appears, such as the
on-screen menu shown in FIG. 3, from which the user may select a
desired operation, which, in the case of setting test scripts, may
be a `TIP Configuration` operation 190. Other operations may
include system maintenance 191, importing/exporting databases 192,
uploading new TIP images 193, downloading TIP reports 194, viewing
TIP reports 195, viewing access reports 196, and any other suitable
operations described herein. A `log out` option 197 is also
preferably included on the menu. Once the `TIP Configuration`
operation is chosen, the authorized user may take the following
steps to set the test scripts for a given testing period.
[0043] First, a period unit of `DAY` or `MONTH` may be chosen,
preferably from a drop-down list appearing on the video monitor 18.
If a period unit of DAY is chosen, the start date of the testing
period may be set for the current date or a future date. If a
period unit of MONTH is chosen, the start date is preferably set
for the first day of the current month or of a future month. If a
start date is set that falls on a date prior to these specified
acceptable start dates, a warning message may be displayed and the
user may then modify the start date.
[0044] Next, a period length may be chosen, preferably from a
drop-clown list, or by entering a number corresponding to the
desired period length via the keyboard 24. The period length is
generally the length of time that the testing period will run. If a
period unit of MONTH is chosen, and a period length of `two` is
entered, the test will run for two months. If a period unit of DAY
is chosen, and a period length of `two` is entered, the test will
run for two days.
[0045] In a preferred embodiment, an option to repeat the test may
be given. If the authorized user, or scanner operator (if the
operator is given such authority), chooses to repeat the test, then
the test may be administered over the previous period length, or
until a new test is scheduled, which preferably overrides the
repeat test. For example, if the testing period is two months, and
the user chooses to repeat the test, then the test will be repeated
over the next two months, or until the date that a new test is
scheduled to start within that two month period, at which time the
new test preferably overrides the repeated test. In a preferred
embodiment, two testing periods may not overlap one another in a
given system 10.
[0046] A pass percentage, which indicates the test score that an
operator must achieve to obtain certification as a scanner
operator, is also preferably set, either via a drop-down list or by
entering a percentage number via the keyboard 24. The pass
percentage may range from 1 to 100. Additionally, a description
including any information relevant to a particular test may
optionally be entered by the authorized user via the keyboard
24.
[0047] The library containing certification images may also contain
information pertaining to the detail of, or difficulty level in
identifying, each certification image. The library containing
training images may generally contain more images to allow operator
training with a variety of images on which to gain experience. The
library containing training images may not necessarily specify
difficulty levels associated with each training image.
[0048] A certification image list for a given test, or set of
tests, may be created or "scripted" by selecting threat item images
from a general source threat list and moving or dragging the
selected items to the certification image list via a mouse
connected to the keyboard 24, or via any other suitable method. In
a similar manner, threat items may be removed from the
certification image list and placed back into the general source
threat list. Once the test scripts for a given test, or set of
tests, are established, the user may save the test scripts in the
system memory by clicking on a `Save Test` icon displayed on the
video monitor 18, or by any other suitable data saving method.
[0049] Training images may be used during a certification test,
i.e., they may be randomly merged into the stream of baggage
images, to keep operators alert and prevent them from memorizing
which images are certification images. This generally allows system
102 to provide a mix of images having varying difficulty levels. By
providing both training and certification images to the operator
during certification, the operator preferably does not rely solely
on his or her memory of what the certification images may look
like. However, training images are preferably not used as images
that will actually count towards certification since operators may
come to memorize training images during the training process.
[0050] Screening system 102 also preferably includes an operator
performance test, the type of image (along with its difficulty)
presented to the operator, and the operator's test results,
including whether the operator achieved a score at or above the
specified pass percentage. To this end, information regarding the
operator's 106 detections, non-detections, and false alarms, as
well as the amount of time an operator spent evaluating a
particular image(s), may be stored in OPD 120. Grades for the
operator's 106 performances may also be stored in OPD 120. It
should be noted that other information pertaining to operator
performance may also be stored in OPD 120.
[0051] There may be different levels or classes of certification
requiring various different levels of proficiency and/or
experience. Accordingly, the operator's 106 levels of proficiency
and experience over time may also be stored in OPD 120. OPD 120
thus preferably provides information on the operator's progress
over time. This allows evaluation of how an operator or group of
operators perform or progress over time.
[0052] Where applicable, system 102 may also serve to promote an
operator 106 to a higher level of certification by virtue of the
information in OPD 120 reflecting that operator's performance. In
this manner, system operator 106 may be allowed to operate system
102 at times or during conditions requiring this higher level of
certification. To this end, system 102 may compare the operator's
log in information to the information stored in OPO 120 to
determine whether the operator is indeed certified to operate
system 102 at that time or during the existing conditions.
Accordingly, the current invention preferably provides a safety
check to ensure that properly certified operators are operating the
system 102 at appropriate times.
[0053] Screening system 102 also preferably includes a
certification criteria database (CCD) 122 which may generally
contain and set forth requirements for operator certification. To
this end, CCD 122 may set forth different sets of requirements that
are required to obtain different types of certification. As such,
CCD 122 may specify the number of images, types of images and
levels of difficulty of images that must be successfully detected
by an operator 106 during a certification test. CCD 122 may specify
the length of time over which a certification test is to be
conducted or the maximum time allowed for an operator 106 to
complete a certification test. CCD 122 may set forth the frequency
of testing necessary to maintain certification. CCD 122 may also
specify the criteria for determining whether an operator's
performance constitutes an acceptable/certifiable performance
(success criteria).
[0054] It is preferred that CCD 122 set forth requirements that are
uniform for a given industry or application. For example, with
certification for airport baggage scanner operators, it is
preferred that criteria contained in CCD 122 be uniformly used to
ensure a minimum certification level throughout the industry. Such
uniform criteria may be specified by the appropriate authority such
as the FAA or other civil aviation authority.
[0055] The criteria contained in CCD 122 may also be changed over
time to reflect changes in desired certification requirements. For
example, should a new type of weapon come into being, the
certification criteria stored in CCD 122 may be revised to include
that image as part of the images to be seen by operators during the
certification process. In this situation, TIP library 118 may also
be updated to include this new type of image as a training and/or
certification image.
[0056] System 102 also preferably includes software 130 that
accesses information contained in the various databases described
above and that analyzes operator performance during testing and
certification. In FIGS. 1-2, software 130 is referred to as Threat
Image Projection-Certification Version software (TIP CV), though
this name is not intended to limit the scope of the invention. More
particularly, certification software 130 may access information in
the various databases, receive and record information about
operator performance, analyze operator performance and provide
reports thereon.
[0057] To accomplish the foregoing objectives, certification
software 130 may perform various functions. For example, software
130 may control which images are presented to the operator 106 from
TIP library 112. This may be accomplished via the test scripts
inputted by a user, as described above, or through a random
selection of images. It is preferred that a sufficient number of
images from varying levels of detection difficulty are presented to
the operator so as to render the training and/or certification
meaningful. To this end, software 130 may retrieve certification
images from TIP library 112 according to the criteria set forth in
CCD 122. And as mentioned above, these criteria may change over
time.
[0058] Certification software 130 may also control the timing of
the images presented to the operator 106, via the test scripts
inputted by a user or via a random timing method. In other words,
software 130 may control the timing of when various training or
certification test images are inserted into the normal stream of
images viewed by the operator 106. For example, software 130 may
insert several training or certification test images in a row, near
each other or at a time apart from each other. This preferably
enhances the training and certification capability of system 102 by
simulating the randomness by which threats may pass through system
102 in real life.
[0059] Software 130 may also ensure that the appropriate number of
certification images are shown to operator 106 within the time
period specified in CCD 122 for that type of certification. This
may occur by increasing the frequency of test images displayed to
the operator as the end of the test period nears, if necessary.
[0060] Software 130 may also record whether an operator 106
successfully detects or does not detect the training or test images
as well as how much time an operator 106 spends evaluating these
images. Based on such information, software 130 may determine
whether a given operator's performance is acceptable. For example,
for certification purposes, software 130 may determine whether the
operator's performance was sufficient for that operator 106 to
become certified or maintain his or her certification level.
[0061] Software 130 may also provide a reporting function on the
operator's performance to the operator and/or the appropriate
authorities, as further described below. For training purposes,
software 130 may provide information on which training images were
successfully detected or not detected, and may also provide
recommendations for further training so as to increase the
operator's performance in the future. This type of reporting
function may help provide for uniform training standards in a given
industry.
[0062] For testing and certification purposes, software 130 may
provide a report indicating the operator's test score and whether
the score suffices for certification. This may occur by a
comparison of the operator's performance information that may be
contained in OPD 120 to the certification criteria contained in CCD
122. Software 130 may also provide a description of what types of
images were successfully detected or not, and thus provide
information on the areas needing further work by the operator. This
reporting function may also help serve to establish uniform testing
guidelines in an industry.
[0063] In determining whether an operator should be certified,
software 130 may supplement the image and associated difficulty
level. Instead of just considering the image and level of
difficulty in and of themselves, software 130 may analyze the
entire image displayed to the operator containing the threat image
as well as its surroundings. This may occur because a certification
image that is normally easy to detect may be made difficult to
detect when placed in a certain location within the ongoing stream
of non-threat baggage. This may also occur when an image is not
projected well on video monitor 104 due to insufficient x-ray
penetration of the baggage, the image into which the certification
image was merged.
[0064] As a result, an operator may fail to detect an otherwise
easily detectable image and may be graded more harshly than he or
she should have been. By supplementing the level of difficulty
assigned to a given certification image with an analysis of the
context in which that image is place, the software 130 may more
accurately evaluate an operator's abilities.
[0065] B. Description of Training and Certification Processes
[0066] The process of training and certifying system operators is
now discussed in more detail with continued reference to FIG. 2,
but also with reference to FIGS. 3 and 4. FIGS. 3 and 4 are
schematics generally depicting the training and certification
method of the invention. The configuration shown by these figures
is not intended to limit the scope of the invention.
[0067] As indicated above, the system and method of the current
invention may provide for uniform training and certification
throughout an industry. The current invention also provides for
regulation of the certification process to avoid cheating. And
because the information contained in the various databases may be
changed to reflect changing conditions and requirements facing
operators, the current invention provides for flexibility in the
certification process.
[0068] In one embodiment of the invention, an operator may be
randomly tested for certification purposes while generally
performing his or her screening duties. That is, any time the
operator is screening baggage or other objects, a test or
certification process may occur. This may occur with or without the
operator's knowledge. Where the testing or certification occurs
without the operator's prior knowledge, the situation is avoided
whereby an operator maintains focus and attention only when a known
testing period is occurring.
[0069] However, there may be situations where the operator is
advised in advance that the screening system 102 will be providing
images to the operator and/or recording operator performance. For
example, system 102 may provide training images so that the
operator may be trained on how to detect or not detect certain
threats. In this situation, it may be preferred to advise the
operator in advance that the system will be providing training
images in order to allow effective and constructive training Once
sufficient training has occurred, however, the operator may be
randomly tested without prior knowledge that a test is to
occur.
[0070] An operator may log into screening system 102 as shown in
step 160a at the beginning of his or her screening shift, training
period, testing period or other period during which the operator is
operating system 102. Suitable identification and password
information may be issued to each operator for the logging in
process. In this manner, system 102 may record the identity of the
operator who is performing the screening duties at a particular
time. The identification and password method of logging in also
helps to avoid cheating in the training and certification process.
For example, it preferably prevents a more skilled operator from
filling in for a less skilled operator. In similar fashion,
operator 106 may log off from system 102 as shown in step 160b.
[0071] Upon an operator logging on to system 102, software 130 may
acknowledge the identity of the operator who will be viewing the
images. In this manner, information in OPD 120 may determine
whether the operator logging at the time is certified to operate
system 102. It should be noted that it is not absolutely necessary
for software 130 to acknowledge the operator's identity for
training or testing to occur. Also, it is not absolutely necessary
for the operator to log on for software 130 to provide images.
Accordingly, it is not intended that the invention be limited as
such.
[0072] Some or all of the screening systems 102 in a given facility
or facilities, may be networked so that a given operator 106 can
log on to any screening system 102 on that network. Some or all of
the screening systems 102 may have access to the relevant databases
so that a training session, certification test or portion of a
certification test could be conducted at different screen system
102 locations. This provides flexibility in that a given operator
could be assigned to different screening systems 102 during a
certification test without affecting the certification process.
Similarly, the problem of having only one screening system 102 in a
facility that is capable of certifying a given operator 106 is
avoided, as is the situation where operators maintain focus and
attention only when stationed at that particular system 102.
[0073] Software 130 may provide training and/or testing images
depending on the circumstances. For example, software 130 may
access CCD 122 to determine which images should be shown according
to the specified criteria, and then access TIP library 118 to
access the desired images to provide to operator 106. As shown in
FIG. 4, the portion of software 130 that interfaces with TIP
library 118 is generally referred to as image control software
130a.
[0074] When system 102 is being used for training purposes, image
control software 130a may access a broad range of images which
allow the operator to become familiar with all types of images that
might be encountered later on during testing and certification, as
well as in real life. The length of a training session may be
controlled by software 130, preferably via the `period unit` and
`period length` test scripts that are entered by an authorized
user, as described above. In this manner, system 102 may be able to
correlate the amount of training with the operator's later success
when being tested.
[0075] In the testing environment, it may be preferred that
certification testing of an operator 106 occurs over a set interval
of time whereby test images are provided for viewing on monitor
106. The length of the test interval may be specified in the
certification criteria database 122, or via the `period unit` and
`period length` test scripts entered by an authorized user. In this
manner, testing for certification may achieve better uniformity
because operators that are not efficiently able to correctly
identify test images will not have some indefinite period of time
to do so which itself would indicate that the operator is not
worthy of certification.
[0076] When system 102 is being used for certification purposes,
the images accessed by image control software 130a and provided to
the operator 106 may be determined by the criteria contained in CCD
122. The images to be provided to operator 106 may be set forth in
a pre-selected list or script file which may be randomized by
software 130a. This preferably helps to prevent memorization and/or
sharing of the specific test sequence of images.
[0077] Software 130 may also generate automatic test sequences
using criteria specified in CCD 122 such as the types of images,
number of images, frequency of projection and length of test. That
is, criteria may be used that call for certain types of images, a
certain number of images and the frequency at which they are shown.
Software 130 may then use these criteria to automatically generate
a test sequence having a string of certification images according
to these criteria.
[0078] Automatic generation of test sequences preferably reduces
the burden of having to pre-program a certification test sequence
of images. Indeed, by creating multiple groups of test sequences
with varying difficulty levels, system 102 simplifies the task of
generating image lists for appropriate certification levels.
[0079] Once an operator 106 has completed a test sequence, the
software 130a may automatically select a different test sequence
for the next test. These subsequent sequences may be controlled by
an appropriate certification control office or by allowing software
130a to automatically generate a random subsequent test sequence
that has not been previously seen by the particular operator
106.
[0080] As mentioned above, it is preferred that certain images of
certain difficulties are provided to the operator 106 when testing
for certification purposes. For example, it is preferred that
during a testing/certification interval, at least one image of each
type of image requiring certification appears on the monitor. To
this end, image control software 130a may first access CCD 122 to
retrieve the pertinent certification regulations and protocols, and
for instructions on which images to access from TIP library
118.
[0081] Thereafter, image control software 130a may provide the
testing images to the operator based on these instructions. In
addition to the type of images provided, image control software
130a may also receive instructions on the frequency that each test
image will be provided to the operator 106. In this manner, the
test images viewed by the operator 106 may be varied to simulate
real life conditions.
[0082] As the operator 106 views the monitor 104, images from TIP
library 118 appear. In the training situation, it may be that
various training images appear one after the other so as to allow
the operator 106 to become familiar therewith. In the testing and
certification situation, test images may be inserted into the
ongoing stream of non-threat baggage or other objects.
[0083] As the operator 106 views the stream of images on monitor
104, he or she will generally detect (170a), not detect (170b) or
falsely detect (170c) what are (or are not) believed to be threat
images. The operator's 106 responses, i.e., detect 170a, no detect
170b or false detect 170c, are preferably recorded in the operator
performance database 120 via software 130. Software 130 may use
this performance information in various ways.
[0084] For example, the information recorded in OPD 120 may be
evaluated by a portion of software 130 that is designed to do so.
In FIG. 4, this portion of software 130 is referred to as
certification software 130b. Overall, certification software 130b
may be used to compare the information recorded in OPD 120
regarding the operator's responses to information contained in the
CCD 122 that may set forth the correct responses.
[0085] CCD 122 may also set forth the minimum allowable standards
for an operator to become certified or maintain his or her
certification. Such minimums may be set by the appropriate
authority. Images that are successfully detected may go towards
meeting the minimum allowable standards. Upon making this
comparison, certification software 130b may generally determine
whether the operator passes 180a and thus becomes certified or
maintains certification, or whether the operator fails 180b and
thus does not become certified or loses certification. To this end,
software 130b may take into account the circumstances surrounding
the certification images. For example, if unusual difficulty
surrounded the image such that it was more difficult to detect than
would otherwise be, this may be taken into account so that the
operator's performance is more accurately considered.
[0086] As another example, the information recorded by OPD 120 may
be used to determine what further training the operator 106 should
undergo. For example, software 130 preferably notes all the
incorrect responses recorded in OPD 120. If it is seen that
operator 106 has trouble detecting a certain type of threat image,
after the training or testing interval has occurred, this
information may be used to convey to an operator (or the
appropriate authority) that further training is recommended on that
type of image.
[0087] As another example, the information recorded by OPD 120 may
be used during a certification interval that is then occurring. To
this end, the certification criteria contained in CCD 122 may
specify that a certain number of different types of images must be
detected during the certification interval for that operator to
pass. If, during the certification interval, the operator 106 fails
to detect a certain type of image, this information may be recorded
in OPD 120 and then used by software 130 to instruct the image
control software 130a to provide another image of that type to the
operator 106.
[0088] After a certification interval ends, certification software
130b generally advises whether the operator 106 passes 180a or
fails 180b. If the operator 106 passes, he or she is preferably
notified and thus need not undergo further testing until some time
in the future. Indeed, the operator 106 may not be aware he or she
was being tested until being made aware that he or she passed. As
mentioned above, subsequent tests are preferably scheduled in a
quasi-random manner so as to maintain operator vigilance.
[0089] The scheduling of subsequent tests may occur per the
criteria in CCD 122. To this end, certain operators may need to be
tested more frequently than others. Accordingly, it is preferred
that system 102 keep track of the type of operator that is
operating the system so that he or she is tested frequently
enough.
[0090] If operator 106 fails, operator 106 is again preferably
notified of the failing result. This may result in various events.
For example, operator 106 may be placed on some type of
probationary status. Alternatively, operator 106 may fail to become
certified (or may become decertified) and thus be precluded from
operating system 102 for the time being. It may be that several
failing grades in subsequent attempts to become certified, or
consistently low scores when attempting to maintain certification,
results in the operator being given other job assignments.
[0091] As another example, the results recorded in OPD 120 may be
used to determine whether a given operator 106 is permitted to log
on and operate the screening system 102. If an operator has not
achieved or maintained certification, the operator may be prevented
from logging on to and operating the screening system absent the
intervention of a supervisor. Similarly, if, during the course of a
certification test, an operator 106 fails to detect a certain
number of certification images such that the operator 102 cannot
pass even with a perfect performance from that point on, the
operator 106 may be automatically logged out and prevented from
further operating the screening system 102 absent intervention by a
supervisor.
[0092] As another example, the results recorded in OPD 120 may be
used to create an individualized training regimen for a particular
operator 106. By determining the strengths and weaknesses of each
operator 106 based on the type and difficulty of each image that
was not detected, software 130 may then be used to formulate a
training regimen that emphasizes those types of images with which
operator 106 had difficulty. In other words, system 102 may provide
a training program that is tailored to address a particular
operator's weaknesses. This in turn may lead to a passing score on
the next certification attempt, as well as a better trained
operator work force.
[0093] As another example, the results for various operators 106
that are recorded in OPD 120 may be evaluated to determine trends
in detection. To this end, if a significant number of operators 106
have difficulty detecting a certain type of threat image, this
information may be used to institute industry-wide training on this
type of threat. Other types of trends may also be determined by
evaluating the information contained in OPD 120.
[0094] To achieve this goal, software 130 preferably provides a
reporting function by accessing and manipulating data contained in
TIP library 118, OPD 120 and/or CCD 122 to provide desired
information. To this end, software 130 preferably includes various
types of filters so that authorized users may extract certain types
of information from the various databases in a format that provides
useful reports. Such reports may include threat detection
percentages by category, individual screener performance summaries,
performance comparisons of multiple screeners; and any other
suitable information for evaluating system and operator
performance.
[0095] The `threat detection by category` reports preferably
include the following fields: [0096] the name and ID number of each
selected screener; [0097] the dates on which each screener
underwent testing; [0098] the time within a test at which each
image appeared; [0099] the threat category (e.g., gun, bomb, etc.,
which will be the same for each item in a `threat detection by
category` report); [0100] the subcategory of each threat, i.e.,
conventional or otherwise; [0101] the threat description (e.g., the
specific gun model or bomb type); [0102] the decision outcome,
i.e., whether the threat was identified ("hit" or "miss"); [0103]
the recognition time for each identified item, i.e., the amount of
time that elapsed before the screener identified the threat; [0104]
the total recognition time for all the threats from a testing
period; and [0105] the average recognition time for all the threats
from a testing period.
[0106] The `individual screener performance summary` reports
preferably include the following fields: [0107] the name and ID
number of a selected screener; [0108] the airport and terminal
where the screener underwent testing; [0109] the date each report
was created; [0110] the number of shifts worked by the screener;
[0111] the number of bags screened by the screener; [0112] the
number of certification images presented; [0113] the number of
certification images properly identified; [0114] the number of
certification images missed; [0115] the percentage score of
properly identified items; [0116] the total and average daily
performance of the screener; and [0117] whether the screener passed
or failed a given test.
[0118] The `screener comparison` reports preferably include the
following fields: [0119] the name and ID number of each selected
screener; [0120] the number of shifts that each screener worked;
[0121] the number of bags screened by each screener; [0122] the
number of certification images presented to each screener; [0123]
the number of certification images properly identified by each
screener; [0124] the number of certification images missed by each
screener; [0125] the percentage score of properly identified items
for each screener; [0126] whether each screener passed or failed a
given test; [0127] the grand total of properly identified items for
all selected screeners; and [0128] the average performance of all
selected screeners as a whole.
[0129] The TIP reports may be downloaded by clicking on the
`Download TIP Reports`, or similar option, from the main menu. The
`threat detection by category,` `individual screener performance
summary,` `screener comparison` and any other suitable reports may
be downloaded individually, or all of the reports may be downloaded
together. To download the reports, a test period and a destination
are preferably selected by an authorized user. For example, an
authorized user may select all CV reports administered over a two
month period from February 1 to March 31 in a given year, and
choose to have those reports downloaded to a floppy drive, a zip
drive, a hard drive, or any other suitable medium. If a test period
and/or a destination is not selected, a warning message will be
displayed, and the authorized user may then add the required
information. The downloaded CV reports are preferably saved to the
selected destination as text (.txt) files.
[0130] Certain aspects of the functionality provided by system 102
that have been mentioned above bear reiteration in this description
of the testing and certification method. First, certification
images are preferably approved and/or graded for difficulty by the
appropriate authority. Second, certification images are preferably
kept secret to avoid cheating by operators seeking certification.
Third, it is preferred that certification images are sufficiently
numerous to avoid memorization by the operators 106. To this end,
certification images may be updated over time, but when this
occurs, it is again desired that the appropriate authority approve
and/or grade the new images.
[0131] Referring now to FIG. 5, an alternative embodiment of the
current invention is shown wherein like reference numerals are used
except that numerals in the 200s are used instead of the 100s as in
FIG. 4.
[0132] In this embodiment, the certification software 230b may be
physically located at a remote location away from screening system
202. Other elements described above may also be located remotely to
system 102. In this embodiment, software 230b and other components
of system 202 may be under the control of, and located at, the
appropriate authority such as the FAA. As discussed below, this may
allow the appropriate authority to have more control over
evaluating operator responses 270a-c and determining whether
operators become certified (or maintain their certification). This
alternative embodiment is substantially similar to the embodiment
of FIG. 4 but may differ as follows.
[0133] As shown by the dotted line, the operator responses 270a-c
recorded in OPD 220 may be transmitted to certification software
230b located at the remote location via a global secure internet
connection, a hierarchical network structure, a physical diskette,
wireless transmission, or some other means of data transmission.
The certification criteria database 222 may be present at both the
location of the screening system 202 as well as the remote
location. In this manner, CCD 222a located at the screening system
202 may be used to test an operator 206, while CCD 222b located at
the remote location may be accessed when determining if an operator
passed.
[0134] More particularly, image control software 230a may access
CCD 222a as a factor in determining the timing and sequence of
images to be displayed on monitor 208 during the certification
process at the screening location. At a separate location,
certification software 230b may compare the standards contained in
CCD 222b with the responses recorded for each individual operator
206 as transmitted from OPD 220 in order to determine whether the
individual operator 206 should be certified 280a or not certified
280b. This alternative configuration preferably allows the
governing body more direct control of the certification process. As
shown by the dotted line, updating one of CCD 222a or 222b may
result in the updating of the other of CCD 222b or 222a.
[0135] Referring now to FIG. 6, comprising parts 6-1 and 6-2, the
functionality of software 130 and how it is used with system 102 is
now further described. As shown, x-ray system software 312 may
reside on a computer associated with system 102. Software 312 may
generally be associated with the system's TIP capability (112 in
FIG. 2) and is thus represented by the reference numeral 312 in
FIG. 6. Certification software 330 (similar to software 130 and 230
in FIGS. 1-3) may reside on a server that has connectivity to
system 102. Indeed, in a preferred embodiment, the current
invention is used in a network environment.
[0136] Operator 106 may log onto system 102 as shown in step 302.
As shown in step 304, certification software 330 preferably
generates a certification test script containing various parameters
such as the length of the testing period, the minimum score
required to pass and the images to be used. During the testing
period, some number of certification images may be shown to the
operator 106 who must successfully detect some minimum number to
pass. As discussed above, these parameters may vary according to
criteria contained in CCD 322. Accordingly, there may be
connectivity with OPD 320 in FIG. 6 when the test script is being
generated as shown in step 304.
[0137] The test script may also vary according to the type of
certification sought by operator 106. As also discussed above, the
test script is preferably generated by software 330 automatically.
Alternatively, however, test scripts may be programmed by the
appropriate authority.
[0138] As shown in step 306, the certification test script 304 may
be transmitted to system 102. Various types of transmission may be
used, but in one embodiment, transmission may occur electronically
over a local area network (LAN). It should be noted that the
foregoing discussion is not intended to require that steps 302, 304
and 306 occur in a certain required order every time.
[0139] A certification test may then generally occur. The
certification interval will begin and over time, the operator 106
may be shown both certification images and standard, or training,
TIP images. As discussed above, both types of images may be
provided to operator 106 to prevent memorization or sharing of the
certification images. At some point after the start of the
interval, the operator 106 will have seen some portion of overall
number of certification images set forth from the test script
304.
[0140] A list of remaining certification images to be shown to
operator 106 (remaining images list or RIL) is preferably generated
as shown in step 308. RIL 308 may be generated at various points in
the testing interval. In a preferred embodiment, RIL 308 may be
generated each time operator 106 logs onto system 102.
[0141] As shown in step 310, queries may be generated as to how
many certification images of the original number remain to be seen
by operator 106, and how many days remain in the certification
interval. Other queries may be generated. Based on these two (or
other) factors, it is determined whether a certification image or a
standard TIP image will be next shown to operator 106. To this end,
for example, if there are few days remaining in the certification
interval and there are a significant number of certification images
that remain to be seen by operator 106, it may be that a
certification image is more likely provided.
[0142] If the outcome of step 310 is that a certification image is
provided as in step 312a, a certification image is preferably
picked from RIL 308 at random as shown in step 314. In connection
therewith, that certification image is preferably removed from RIL
308. If the outcome of step 310 is that a standard TIP image is
provided as shown in step 312b, a certification image will not be
removed from RIL 308 and step 314 is generally bypassed. Upon
either a certification TIP image or standard TIP image being
chosen, the TIP image is merged into the image of the image of the
baggage as shown in step 316.
[0143] Thereafter, the operator's performance may be recorded as
shown in step 318. The operator performance may generally comprise
a detect, no detect or false alarm as discussed in connection with
steps 170a-c in FIG. 4. The information reflecting the operator's
performance may be transmitted to operator performance database
(OPD) 320 as shown in step 330. As discussed above, it is generally
preferred that the operator's performance on only the certification
images count towards determining whether certification is obtained
or maintained.
[0144] As the certification interval progresses, operator 106 will
be shown more images in the manner described above. This repetitive
process is shown by step 332. Generally, it is preferred that
operator 106 has the opportunity to see all certification images
during the certification interval. Alternatively, it is preferred
that operator see at least a minimum number of certification images
that would enable the operator to become certified.
[0145] As the operator's performance data is stored in OPD 320, it
is compared with the information stored in CCD 322 to determine
whether the particular operator passes. This comparison may occur
multiple times until the certification interval is complete. To
this end, query 334 may be generated on whether the testing
interval is completed. If not, as shown in step 336a, additional
comparison(s) between operator performance data in OPD 320 and
certification criteria in CCD 322 will occur.
[0146] When the certification interval is complete as shown in step
336b, the operator's overall performance will be assessed according
to the minimum score requirement set forth in the test script 304.
If the minimum score is achieved, operator 106 becomes certified or
maintains certification as shown in step 380a. Alternatively, if
operator 106 does not meet the minimum score, certification is not
obtained or may be lost as shown in step 380b.
[0147] In an alternative embodiment, the screening system 102 is
incorporated into a checkpoint wherein various types of other
information generated by other screening methods or devices are
recorded to supplement the information described above. In
locations such as airports, x-ray screening systems are generally
used in combination with metal detectors, where the x-ray screening
system is used to detect threats contained in baggage and the metal
detector is used to detect threats concealed by people under
clothing, etc.
[0148] The alarms on metal detectors may be activated by a
significant percentage of people passing through checkpoints,
requiring further inspection. Other methods and devices may also be
used to detect threats and the information generated by their use
may also be used to supplement the information described above.
[0149] By recording the number of people and bags that pass through
a checkpoint as well as the number of detections by the metal
detector, a more complete measure of the total activity at that
checkpoint may be ascertained. Accordingly, the current invention
preferably includes databases and software to record, store and
report on the volume of people passing through a checkpoint as well
as the number of detections made by the metal detector(s) (or other
detection devices) at that checkpoint. It is also preferred that
the metal detector and/or other detector information may be
transmitted over a network in similar fashion to the certification
information described above. This other detection information may
be incorporated with the certification information to provide an
overall picture of operator performance.
[0150] This activity may be compared with operator performance data
from the OPD 120 to determine the effect of overall checkpoint
activity levels on operator performance. For example, operator
performance may suffer during periods of increased activity at a
checkpoint due to distraction. As such, this information may be
used to determine a minimum number of personnel at a given
checkpoint for given activity levels in order to maintain a
specified level of threat detection by operators 106.
[0151] Information relating to the amount of activity at a
checkpoint may also be used to determine the timing of
certification testing and the timing of the display of threat
images during certification testing. For example, certification
testing may be avoided during periods of high activity because of
delays it may cause. Similarly, the number of certification images
displayed during times of increased activity may be decreased in
order to lessen delay and increase the flow of people through a
checkpoint. Alternatively, the number of certification images
displayed during periods of increased activity may be increased in
order to test and certify an operator's performance under more
difficult conditions.
[0152] While various preferred embodiments and configuration have
been described above, the current invention is not limited to these
exact embodiments and configuration. For example, various databases
or software components separately described above may be combined.
Accordingly, one skilled in the art will appreciate that variations
may be made to the foregoing description without departing from the
scope of the current invention.
* * * * *