Interpretation: SEG 1 (1):T45-T55 (2013)

Geoscientific data interpretation is a highly subjective and complex task because human intuition and biases play a significant role. Based on these interpretations, however, the mining and petroleum industries make decisions with paramount financial and environmental implications. To improve the accuracy and efficacy of these interpretations, it is important to better understand the interpretation process and the impact of different interpretation techniques, including data processing and display methods. As a first step toward this goal, we aim to quantitatively analyze the variability in geophysical data interpretation between and within individuals. We carried out an experiment to analyze how individuals interact with magnetic data during the process of identifying prescribed targets. Participants performed two target spotting exercises where the same magnetic image was presented at different orientations. The task was to identify the magnetic response from porphyry-style intrusive systems. The experiment involved analyzing the data observation pattern during the interpretation process using an eye tracker system that captures the interpreter’s eye gaze motion and the target-spotting performance. The time at which targets were identified was also recorded. Fourteen participants with varying degrees of experience and expertise participated in this study. The results show inconsistencies within and between the interpreters in target-spotting performance. The results show a correlation between a systematic data observation pattern and target-spotting performance. Improved target-spotting performance was obtained when the magnetic image was observed from multiple orientations. These findings will help to identify and quantify the effective interpretation practices, which can provide a roadmap for the training of geoscientific data interpreters and contribute toward the understanding of the uncertainties in the data interpretation process.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1190/int-2013-0002.1
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 53,617
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Ethical Profiling.Michael Boylan - 2011 - The Journal of Ethics 15 (1-2):131 - 145.
Profiling and the Rule of Law.Mireille Hildebrandt - 2008 - Identity in the Information Society 1 (1):55-70.
Mental Models in Data Interpretation.Clark A. Chinn & William F. Brewer - 1996 - Philosophy of Science 63 (3):219.
Genomic Research Data: Open Vs. Restricted Access.David B. Resnik - 2010 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 32 (1):1.
Data Interpretation in the Digital Age.Sabina Leonelli - 2014 - Perspectives on Science 22 (3):397-417.
Data Models and the Acquisition and Manipulation of Data.Todd Harris - 2003 - Philosophy of Science 70 (5):1508-1517.
A Lot of Data.Kent Johnson - 2011 - Philosophy of Science 78 (5):788-799.


Added to PP index

Total views
4 ( #1,184,077 of 2,348,769 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #512,546 of 2,348,769 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes