4.1 Article

Framing bias: The effect of figure presentation on seismic interpretation

Journal

Publisher

SOC EXPLORATION GEOPHYSICISTS
DOI: 10.1190/INT-2017-0083.1

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NERC grant [NE/M007251/1]
  2. NERC [NE/M007251/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/M007251/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Interpreters of reflection seismic data generally use images to disseminate the outcomes of their geologic interpretation work. The presentation of such interpretation images can generate unwanted biases in the perception of the observers, an effect known as framing bias. These framing biases can enhance or reduce the confidence of the observer in the presented interpretation, independently of the quality of the seismic data or the geologic interpretation. We have tested the effect of presentation on confidence in interpretation of 761 participants of an online experiment. Experiment participants were presented with seismic images and interpretations, deliberately modified in different aspects to introduce potential framing biases. Statistical analysis of the results indicates that the image presentation had a subdued effect on participants' confidence compared with the quality of the seismic data and interpretation. The results allow us to propose recommendations to minimize biases in the observers related to the presentation of seismic interpretations: (1) interpretations should be shown with the seismic data in the background to ease comparison between the uninterpreted-interpreted data and the subsequent confidence assessments; (2) seismic data displayed in color aids in the interpretation, although the color palettes must be carefully chosen to prevent unwanted bias from common color spectrum in the observers; and (3) explicit indication of uncertainty by the interpreters in their own interpretation, which was deemed useful by the participants.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available