Classification of Cognitive Load and Expertise for Adaptive Simulation using Deep Multitask Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simulations are a pedagogical means of enabling a risk-free way for healthcare practitioners to learn, maintain, or enhance their knowledge and skills. Such simulations should provide an optimum amount of cognitive load to the learner and be tailored to their levels of expertise. However, most current simulations are a one-type-fits-all tool used to train different learners regardless of their existing skills, expertise, and ability to handle cognitive load. To address this problem, we propose an end-to-end framework for a trauma simulation that actively classifies a participant's level of cognitive load and expertise for the development of a dynamically adaptive simulation. To facilitate this solution, trauma simulations were developed for the collection of electrocardiogram (ECG) signals of both novice and expert practitioners. A multitask deep neural network was developed to utilize this data and classify high and low cognitive load, as well as expert and novice participants. A leave-one-subject-out (LOSO) validation was used to evaluate the effectiveness of our model, achieving an accuracy of 89.4% and 96.6% for classification of cognitive load and expertise, respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".