Uncertain geological and geophysical data, including the use of heuristics Our results provide evidence of biases in interpretation of Interpreted fault dip angles show noĮvidence of other constraints (e.g. from the application of accepted faultĭip models). Three differentĬonceptual models were adopted by participants, constrained by initial StatisticalĪnalysis of the results indicates that early anchoring to specificĬonceptual models had the most impact on interpretation outcome, with theĭegree of vertical exaggeration having a subdued influence. The seismic section was randomly presented to the participants withĭifferent horizontal–vertical exaggeration ( 1:4 or 1:2). Participants were asked to interpretĪ series of faults and a horizon, offset by those faults, in a seismic Interpretation of vertically exaggerated seismic data influenced theĬreation and adoption of the conceptual models of 161 participants in a Reduce unwanted effects in interpretation results. It is thereforeĬritical to understand how conceptual models are generated and applied to However, conceptual modelsĬan create powerful anchors that prevent interpreters from reassessing andĪdapting their interpretations as part of the interpretation process, whichĬan subsequently lead to flawed or erroneous outcomes. Seismic data, which carries inherent uncertainty.

It allows interpreters to make geological sense of The use of conceptual models is essential in the interpretation of

Seismic reflection images