Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
The Flooded Locations and Simulated Hydrographs (FLASH) project is a suite of tools that use weather radar-based rainfall estimates to force hydrologic models to predict flash floods in real-time. However, early evaluation of FLASH tools in a series of simulated forecasting operations, it was believed that the data aggregation and visualization methods might have contributed to forecasting a large number of false alarms. The present study addresses the question of how two alternative data aggregation and visualization methods affect signal detection of flash floods. A sample of 30 participants viewed a series of stimuli created from FLASH images and were asked to judge whether or not they predicted significant or insignificant amounts of flash flooding. Analyses revealed that choice of aggregation method did affect probability of detection. Additional visual indicators such as geographic scale of the stimuli and threat level affected the odds of interpreting the model predictions correctly as well as congruence in responses between national and local scale model outputs. We discuss the Flooded Locations and Simulated Hydrographs project, a set of models intended for flash flood forecasting.We evaluate the effects on user performance of two data aggregation methods for a flash flood visualization.We demonstrate that signal detection in the tool is related to display method, threat level, and scale of visual distractors. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2017 | 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.11.004 | Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
Data aggregation,Visualization,Weather forecasting,Flash flooding,Human factors,Decision making,Signal detection,Situation awareness | Data mining,Hydrological modelling,Weather radar,Detection theory,Visualization,Computer science,Flash flood,Data aggregator,Statistical power,Weather forecasting | Journal |
Volume | Issue | ISSN |
99 | C | 1071-5819 |
Citations | PageRank | References |
0 | 0.34 | 7 |
Authors | ||
5 | ||
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Elizabeth M. Argyle | 1 | 1 | 1.04 |
| Jonathan J. Gourley | 2 | 48 | 9.38 |
| Chen Ling | 3 | 0 | 2.03 |
| Randa L. Shehab | 4 | 2 | 2.48 |
| Ziho Kang | 5 | 0 | 0.68 |