Physiological correlates of cognitive load in laparoscopic surgery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laparoscopic surgery can be exhausting and frustrating, and the cognitive load experienced by surgeons may have a major impact on patient safety as well as healthcare economics. As cognitive load decreases with increasing proficiency, its robust assessment through physiological data can help to develop more effective training and certification procedures in this area. We measured data from 31 novices during laparoscopic exercises to extract features based on cardiac and ocular variables. These were compared with traditional behavioural and subjective measures in a dual-task setting. We found significant correlations between the features and the traditional measures. The subjective task difficulty, reaction time, and completion time were well predicted by the physiology features. Reaction times to randomly timed auditory stimuli were correlated with the mean of the heart rate ([Formula: see text]) and heart rate variability ([Formula: see text]). Completion times were correlated with the physiologically predicted values with a correlation coefficient of 0.84. We found that the multi-modal set of physiology features was a better predictor than any individual feature and artificial neural networks performed better than linear regression. The physiological correlates studied in this paper, translated into technological products, could help develop standardised and more easily regulated frameworks for training and certification.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it