MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965719171 · doi:10.4050/f-0075-2019-14559

A Comparison of Control Activity and Heart Rate as Measures of Pilot Workload in a Helicopter Tracking Task

2019· article· en· W2965719171 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew Law, Sion Jennings, Kris Ellis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadHeart rate variabilityHeart rateHeart beatSimulationComputer scienceFlight simulatorTask (project management)EngineeringBlood pressureMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two qualified test pilots performed a target tracking flight task on a Bell 205 helicopter. Cooper-Harper handling quality ratings confirmed that pilot compensation was proportional to task difficulty. Pilot control activity was measured using the Dynamic Interface Modeling and Simulation System Product Metric (DIMSS-PM) to quantify the number and amplitude of control deflections during each trial. Inter-beat interval measures of heart rate and heart rate variability were also computed to evaluate the pilot's autonomic nervous system (ANS) response to task workload. The DIMSS-PM was positively correlated with task difficulty, as expected based on the dynamics of target motion for each difficulty level. By comparison, the mean and high-frequency (HF) variability of heart beat intervals were negatively correlated with task difficulty, suggesting an increase in ANS arousal with increased pilot workload. Pilot-specific differences were found in the time-dependent relationship between DIMSS-PM, mean heart beat interval, and HF variability, indicating that control activity and heart rate metrics provide asynchronous and complementary information about pilot workload during helicopter flight. NOTATION ANOVA Analysis of Variance ANS Autonomic Nervous System DIMMS-PM Dynamic Interface Modeling and Simulation System Product Metric ECG Electrocardiogram FBW Fly-By-Wire FRL Flight Research Laboratory HR Heart Rate HRV Heart Rate Variability HQR Handling Qualities Rating NRC National Research Council Canada RRI Inter-beat (R-R) Interval RMS Root Mean Square RMSSD RMS of Successive Differences in RRI SDNN Standard Deviation of RRI HF High Frequency (0.15 - 0.4 Hz) LF Low Frequency (0.04 - 0.15 Hz)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207