Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2018 Annual Meeting 1499

Analysis of Eddy Current: What Can Be Done to Reduce the Number of

False Positives and False Negatives Made by Human Operators in
Nondestructive Testing?
Yasmin Arbab, Dan Nathan-Roberts, Ph.D
Industrial and Systems Engineering, San José State University

This work identifies the potential for improving the reliability of nondestructive testing
(NDT) in the aviation industry. This particular work is focused on a piece of equipment
called eddy current scanner and specifically investigates how this instrument, used to detect
cracks on aircraft components, could be improved to better fit human needs and
capabilities. Current research shows us that Type I and Type II errors, also known as false
negatives and false positives, made by operators of the eddy current are in part due to
workspace conditions, physical positioning, and mental states greatly affecting the amount
of cognitive resources left available to perform a job accurately and reliably. Potential
solutions that are within the realm of eddy current’s design and possible enhancements are
presented.

INTRODUCTION using a variety of testing methods (García-Martín,

Aircraft maintenance inspection is an integral
component of the aviation industry. This industry
simply could not function without the contributions
of aviation technicians. That being said, erroneous
maintenance inspection is a significant contributor of
safety related accidents and injuries. According to a
2014 report by the Aviation Safety Reporting
System, 18% of all aircraft accidents in the United
States had maintenance factors involved (Wang, et
al., 2014). Historically, these errors were written off
Copyright 2018 by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. DOI 10.1177/1541931218621339
Gómez-Gil, & Vázquez-Sánchez, 2011). Currently
in the NDT field, aircraft defects and discontinuities
are detected by equipment such as eddy current,
which is one of the most widely used non-destructive
forms of testing (García-Martín, et al., 2011). The
eddy current configuration consists of a probe with
which to inspect the part, a display box with a display
with several functions (null, gain, and rotation), and
a cable to connect the two. The operator uses the
pencil-like probe to scan the object and refers to the

display on the display box to interpret the signal. The

as failures of technicians to perform their jobs well.
More recently, there has been a globalized
acknowledgment that maintenance related errors
reflect the interplay of personal, workplace, and
organizational factors (Hobbs, 2008).
Aviation technicians employ a variety of
technologies and testing methods within a given
inspection job, all while confronted with a number of
pressures and stressors that impact data collection
and task performance. While technicians and
industry hold technicians accountable for their
actions, mitigating maintenance errors requires a
system-level response that starts by looking into the
specific testing processes involved.
BACKGROUND
Non-destructive testing (NDT) is a common and
unobtrusive process of inspecting, testing, or
evaluating the integrity of a material, and can be done
operator needs to constantly shift between the test
object and the equipment display box while also
adjusting the machine settings by pressing a null
button. Assessing the data, which is presented on the
screen that is typically placed off to the side or
behind the operator, while simultaneously using the
probe to scan the part is problematic because it may
hinder the accuracy of crack detection.
The probability of detecting cracks in aircraft
parts using the current and typical techniques are not
as high as those in the industry would prefer, nor are
they as high as those responsible for maintenance and
safety would expect. This is due to a number of
operator factors. If certain operator factors cannot be
controlled, can this piece of equipment used for NDT
inspections be improved in such a way that would
reduce human error? To answer this question, it is
important to first understand the human factors
limitations involved with the eddy current design and
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2018 Annual Meeting
how other industries have addressed similar
problems. This proceeding reviews potential eddy
current improvement suggestions with the goal of
controlling for operator errors in NDT inspection,
specifically in reducing the number of false calls and
misses made during testing.
FACTORS AFFECTING EDDY CURRENT
DATA COLLECTION
The following examines how an eddy current
operator’s performance and accuracy during a job is
highly influenced by surrounding factors. These
include a number of physical, cognitive, and
macroergonomic factors.
Cognitive Factors
Vigilance Decrement. NDT inspection requires
long hours of visual search on what can generally be
considered a vigilance task (D’Agostino, Morrow,
Franklin, & Hughes, 2017). Research shows that
when operators looking for defects try to maintain
sustained attention to vigilance tasks, they are often
prone to alarmingly high miss rates (Wickens,
Hollands, Banbury, & Parasuraman, 2016).
Operating an eddy current demands continuous
vigilance, which is a cognitively demanding activity.
In a report about human factors in maintenance jobs,
Hobbs (2008) describes the concept of vigilance
decrement as a form of fatigue that applies to
detection tasks in which the operator is required to
monitor a situation that is monotonous and in which
the limiting factor is the ability to maintain attention
on the task at hand. An eddy current operator, for
example, may have to spend a large amount of time
tediously scanning the entirety of an airplane wing.
Such an inspection task that does not involve much
variety or regular breaks is more likely to suffer from
a vigilance decrement.
Visual Attention. According to multiple resource
theory, in any type of task where attention is divided,
an operator issue is more likely to occur (Wickens, et
al., 2016). An eddy current operator’s visual
attention is compromised because attention is split
between the part being inspected and the display box
that provides feedback. Depending on what airplane
component is being inspected, the eddy current
display box is often placed to the side or even behind
the operator, which is undesirable for obvious
1500
reasons, including the impact it has on cognitive
load, the speed of the inspection process, and
potentially decreased accuracy in detecting cracks.
Signal Detection. When using an eddy current,
depending on the true state of the component (i.e.,
crack or no crack) and the operator’s assessment of
it (i.e., crack or no crack), there are four possible
performance outcomes: hit, miss, false call, or
correct rejection (D’Agostino, et al., 2017). For the
purpose of this review, a false positive describes an
event in which no flaw exists and the operator
indicates a flaw present, and a false negative is when
there is a flaw and the operator does not detect it.
A study in which samples of aircraft parts
containing cracks were inspected by eddy current
operators found that the primary source of the
variance in the data recorded, and the main cause of
the failure to detect flaws is attributed to human
factors aspects of the eddy current testing process
(Drury, Prabhu, & Ramopadhye, 1990). It can be
argued that false positives and false negatives are, in
part, a result of the inefficiencies of the present eddy
current design that are susceptible to human errors.
Physical Factors
Although an obvious solution to the cognitive
ergonomics issues previously presented would seem
to be to collocate the probe, display box, and
controls, there are important physical ergonomics
concerns with such designs because of the physical
size and weight.
Noise. An influencing factor that has been shown
to affect the quality and reliability of NDT inspection
is noise in the work environment. Eddy current
operators are constantly confronted with the
challenge of environmental noise because most of
their work is done in hangars and at airports, where
airplanes are continuously taking off and landing and
where much loud tooling is used. The effects of
sporadic and chronic exposure to noise can disrupt
attention, causing inspectors to lose focus on the task
at hand.
A report by Enkvist, Edland, & Syenson, (1999)
explained that in NDT testing, noise can affect the
analysis of data. For instance, if there is loud
background noise, the operator’s perception might be
impaired, which ultimately results in poor decision
making.
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2018 Annual Meeting
Body Positioning. Accessibility difficulties are a
common concern in maintenance due to the nature of
an aircraft’s design. The dimensions of an eddy
current operator’s work space subjects them to
uncomfortable positons for extended periods of time,
limits their ability to see or access the component
being inspected, and affects their ability to see the
equipment they are using to perform the inspection
task (D’Agostino, et al., 2017).
It has also been suggested that the use of
equipment, such as the eddy current, which requires
constant raising and lowering of the display box in
awkward and constrained positions, demonstrably
increases the rate of fatigue and postural stress in
NDT operators while decreasing endurance,
attentiveness, and sensory processes during the
performance of tasks (D’Agostino, et a., 2017).
Mozrall and Drury (1996) explained that the task is
already cognitively demanding in itself and that the
physical demands due to body positioning adversely
affects operator workload and task performance.
Equipment Design. The design of equipment can
have a significant impact on how the operators of that
equipment perform a task. Issues with equipment
design have been widely acknowledged in the NDT
community (D’Agostino, et al., 2017). Frequently,
eddy current operators deal with cumbersome
equipment setup and operation, and the probe
scanning the aircraft component is not in the line of
sight with the display box which inevitably proves to
be problematic. Enkvist et al. (1999) noted that
equipment that is difficult to use and not
ergonomically designed affects performance and
may lead to cognitive and physical fatigue.
A study done by the Air Force Logistics
Command program hypothesized that one
explanation for why there is variance of performance
for flaw detection may be that the inspector is not
appropriately alerted when a flaw is present, thus
implying that NDT equipment design has
deficiencies (D’Agostino, et al., 2017). Display box
designs that do not provide an adequate
comprehension of the status of the system leads to
errors in decision making.
Macroergonomic Factors
Time. Aircraft maintenance inspection is a
cognitively taxing task because it demands constant
1501
vigilance. Operators often work at odd hours when
aircraft aren’t in service under the pressure of time,
and it has been found that the effects of long shifts
can contribute to fatigue and decrease the attentional
resources that are devoted to the task (D’Agostino, et
al., 2017). Both time pressure and increased mental
workload under fatigue have a profound negative
impact on NDT operator performance (Mueller,
Bertovic, Pavlovic, & Ronneteg, 2013). Interviews
with NDT operators suggest that perceived fatigue is
a contributing factor in performance when recording
false positives and negatives (D’Agostino, et al.,
2017).
Hazardous Workspaces. Aircraft maintenance
operators work in inhospitable environments with a
range of factors that have the potential to affect
inspection performance. These include high noise
level, extreme temperatures, high levels of humidity,
insufficient or excessive lighting, exposure to toxic
chemicals, and inadequate ventilation. Bertovic
(2015) noted that those difficult working conditions,
coupled with the equipment an inspector uses, could
increase the mental workload of inspectors, which, in
turn, decreases inspection quality.
COUNTERMEASURES
In recognition of the shortcomings of eddy
current, in the context of human errors during
maintenance inspection processes, focus can be
directed towards countermeasures to mitigate those
errors. By exploring the extent to which similar
human factors issues have been addressed across
industries, we can better understand and visualize the
feasibility of improving human interaction with eddy
current that are within the scope of today’s
technology.
Instrument Interventions
Signal Enhancement. Research shows that
operator performance is improved with the
combination of different forms of feedback and is
especially beneficial when tasks are carried out in
inaccessible areas or when environmental factors
contribute to cognitive overload. A paper presenting
the calibration of a tip-force sensing needle with
haptic feedback illustrated the advantages of this
type of feedback in medical applications, including
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2018 Annual Meeting
the reduction of false positive errors and faster
operation times in practice (Elayaperumal, Bae,
Daniel, & Cutkosky, 2014).
An experiment that tested 60 individuals on a
multiple-screen, visual target detection task showed
significant and substantive improvements in
performance, such that false negatives and false
positives were reduced by 86% and 77%,
respectively, when haptic feedback was
incorporated. In addition, cognitive workload was
also reduced by more than 30% in the multi-cued
group compared with the control condition (Hancock
& Mercado, 2013). It is clear that multiple sources of
feedback reduce operator errors as well as mental
workload.
Minimization of Information Access Cost. This
refers to the cost in time or effort to “move” selective
attention from one location to another to access
necessary information (Wickens, et al., 2016).
Research in the healthcare industry has shown that
replacing an external display by attaching a small
screen to surgical instruments does not necessarily
occlude vision, alleviates the physical stress due to
head movement because of constantly switching
views, and can reduce cognitive demands (Herrlich
et al., 2017).
The findings of Minnich & Schell (2003)
research also concluded that a face-mounted (also
known as head mounted) high-resolution video
display unit reduces back and neck strains in
surgeons performing lengthy procedures. It also
improves both visualization and overall satisfaction
in comparison with standard laparoscopic display
monitors. Designing displays in such a way that
information is focused and organized is a solution
that can be employed to reduce the effects of stress
and time pressure (Enkvist, et al., 1999). Recent
improvements in electronics miniaturization will
provide other options for designers building eddy
current systems in coming years. This may also
include opportunities for systematically presenting
false signals as a test of operator performance or to
increase vigilance as has been done in recent years in
security screening.
Operator Interventions
Vigilance Training. Specific training that
inspectors receive is another element that can
1502
influence the reliability of an inspection. In recent
years, security systems such as the Transportation
Security Administration's (TSA), which screens
baggage at all US airports, has very effectively
addressed the issue of vigilance decrement with the
implementation of new training methods (Szalma,
Hancock, Dember, & Warm, 2006). TSA agents
often work long shifts at odd times and have been
subject to missing targets the longer they work
without a break. A TSA study found that false
negatives can be severely reduced if screeners are
trained to recognize when they are experiencing
vigilance decrements and are told what actions to
take when vigilance decrements occur, as well as
being trained on techniques for monitoring one
another’s performance to determine vigilance
decrements (Varnadore, Millar & Wilson, 2002).
Organizational Interventions
Regular Rest Breaks. Taking regular rest breaks
has been suggested as a mitigation strategy to reduce
time exposure to unfavorable environments.
Specifically, taking those rest breaks can alleviate the
potential adverse effects of uncomfortable positions
due to restricted work spaces in NDT testing
(D’Agostino et al., 2017).
In a study in which performance and mental
workload were observed when participants were
engaging in an auditory and visual monitoring task,
it was concluded that a short rest break restored
detection accuracy in the task following deterioration
in performance (Arrabito, Ho, Aghaei, & Burns,
2015).
LIMITATIONS
A limitation of this proceeding is that there is a
limited amount of literature that focuses specifically
on how false positives and negatives have been
addressed and ameliorated in NDT. This proceeding
is a literature review and did not test an intervention
to see the impact in this domain, and the contents of
this proceeding are not an exhaustive list. This
literature review was not intended to be a collective
review of evidence regarding human factors issues
with eddy current but rather a starting point with
which to address the fact that there is much more that
can and should be done to remedy maintenance
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2018 Annual Meeting
inspection errors when using an eddy current. The
next step of this research requires a proper
experimental design and an iterative design process
reach meaningful results.
CONCLUSIONS
With clear links between eddy current reliability
and human factors, we can derive practices to
improve performance (specifically, to reduce false
positives and false negatives made on the job). There
is a need to concentrate on a practical method to
empirically evaluate the proficiency of the eddy
current operator, starting with the equipment being
used and considering the environment it is being used
in. There are a number of strategies that can be put in
place to mitigate some of the procedural and
environmental factors that affect eddy current
inspection reliability; however, as research across
industries shows, the most-direct impact can be made
by developing the actual equipment’s design.
This review suggests that human factors can be
studied when attempting to understand potential
eddy current design improvements that are within the
scope of today's technology as well as the process
and procedures behind using it. Research says, “full
advantage should be taken from the advent of
microprocessors and newly emerging electronic
devices which provide a number of powerful,
complex operations for signal processing, instrument
readout and process control” (Lewis, Sproat, Dodd,
& Hamilton, 1978). Similar to how those in the
healthcare industry have benefitted from the redesign
of surgical instruments that has been proven to
greatly reduce human errors and cognitive load, eddy
current has potential to transform the way human
operators interact with this device and do their job. It
can be argued that by taking a multifaceted approach
to reducing false positives and negatives, possibly by
implementing a small display on the probe and
establishing some organizational changes, operators
will have a lower cognitive load to be able to inspect
an aircraft component more completely and pick up
smaller cracks and defects that may normally be
missed.
REFERENCES
Arrabito, G. R., Ho, G., Aghaei, B., & Burns, C. (2015).
Sustained Attention in Auditory and Visual Monitoring Tasks:
Evaluation of the Administration of a Rest Break or Exogenous
1503
Vibrotactile Signals. Human Factors, 57(8), 1403-1416.
doi:10.1177/0018720815598433
Bertovic, M. (2015). Human Factors in Non-Destructive
Testing (NDT): Risks and Challenges of Mechanised NDT.
ResearchGate. doi:10.14279/depositonce-4685
Drury, C. G., Prabhu, P., & Ramopadhye, A. (1990). Task Analysis of Aircraft
Inspection Activities: Methods and Findings. Proceedings of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 34(16),
1181-1185. doi:10.1177/154193129003401620
D’Agostino, A., Morrow, S., Franklin, C., & Hughes, N.
(2017). Review of Human Factors Research in Nondestructive
Examination Retrieved from
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1705/ML17059D745.pdf
Elayaperumal, S., Bae, J. H., Daniel, B. L., & Cutkosky, M. R.
(2014). Detection of Membrane Puncture with Haptic Feedback
using a Tip-Force Sensing Needle. IEEE/RSJ International
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2014, 3975–3981.
doi:10.1109/IROS.2014.6943121
Enkvist, J., Edland, A., & Svenson, O. (1999). Human Factors
Aspects of Non-Destructive Testing in the Nuclear Power Context.
International Nuclear Information System , 30(23). Retrieved from
http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/3
0/026/30026316.pdf?r=1
García-Martín, J., Gómez-Gil, J., & Vázquez-Sánchez, E.
(2011). Non-Destructive Techniques Based on Eddy Current
Testing. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 11(3), 2525–2565.
doi:10.3390/s110302525
Hancock, P. A., & Mercado, J. E. (2013). Improving target
detection in visual search through the augmenting multi-sensory
cues. Ergonomics, 56(5), 729-738.
doi:10.1080/00140139.2013.771219
Herrlich, M., Tavakol, P., Black, D., Wenig, D., Rieder, C., Malaka, R., &
Kikinis, R. (2017). Instrument-mounted displays for reducing
cognitive load during surgical navigation. International Journal of
Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 12(9), 1599–1605. doi:
10.1007/s11548-017-1540-6
Hobbs, A. (2008). An Overview of Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance.
ResearchGate. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alan_Hobbs/publication/2652
40960_An_Overview_of_Human_Factors_in_Aviation_Maintenan
ce/links/554d17b40cf29f836c9cd6f3.pdf.
Lewis, W.H., Sproat, W.H., Dodd, B.D., Hamilton, J.M., “Reliability of
Nondestructive Inspections – Final Report, US Air Force Report No.
SA-ALC/MME 76-6-38-1, Lockheed – Georgia Company, 1978.
Minnich, D., & Schell, S. (2003). Evaluation of face-mounted
binocular video display for laparoscopy: outcomes of psychometric
skills testing and surgeon satisfaction. Journal of Laparoendoscopic
& Advanced Surgical Techniques and Videoscopy, 13(5), 333-338.
doi:10.1089/109264203769681754
Mozrall, J. R., & Drury, C. G. (1996). Effects of physical
exertion on task performance in modern manufacturing: a
taxonomy, a review, and a model. Ergonomics, 39(10), 1179-1213.
doi:10.1080/00140139608964539
Müller, C., Bertovic, M., Pavlovic, M., & Ronneteg, U.
(2013). Paradigm Shift in the Holistic Evaluation of the Reliability
of NDE Systems. Materials Testing, 261-269.
doi:10.3139/120.110433
Szalma, J. L., Hancock, P. A., Dember, W. N. & Warm, J. S.
(2006), Training for vigilance: The effect of knowledge of results
format and dispositional optimism and pessimism on performance
and stress. British Journal of Psychology, 97: 115–135.
doi:10.1348/000712605X62768
Varnadore, M., Millar, J., & Wilson, K. A. (2002). Improving airport screener
training and evaluation through the use of simulation. Retrieved
from http://www.mind.foi.se/SAWMAS/SAWMAS-
2002/Papers/SAWMAS-02-KWilson.pdf
Wang, T., & Chuang, L. (2014). Psychological and
physiological fatigue variation and fatigue factors in aircraft line
maintenance crews. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,
44(1), 107-113. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2013.11.003
Wickens, C. D., Hollands, J. G., Banbury, S., & Parasuraman, R. (2016).
Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. London:
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.