MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312884605 · doi:10.4236/jbbs.2022.1210027

Cognitive Workload Assessment of Aircraft Pilots

2022· article· en· W4312884605 on OpenAlexafffund
Maxime Antoine, Hamdi Ben Abdessalem, Claude Frasson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Behavioral and Brain Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalComputer Research Institute of Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsortium de Recherche et d’innovation en Aérospatiale au Québec
KeywordsTakeoffWorkloadPupillary responseCognitionAirplanePupillometrySimulationCognitive loadComputer sciencePupilAeronauticsMoment (physics)PsychologyEngineeringAutomotive engineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this research, we study the cognitive workload of aircraft pilots during a simulated takeoff procedure. We propose a proof-of-concept setup environment to gather heart rate, pupil dilation, and brain cognitive workload data during an A320 takeoff within a simulator. Experiments were performed during which we collected 136 takeoffs across 13 pilots for more than 9 hours of time-series data. Moreover, this paper investigates the correlations between heart rate, pupil dilation, and cognitive workload during such exercise and found that a spike in cognitive load during a critical moment, such as an engine failure, augments a pilot’s heart rate and pupil dilation. Results show that a critical moment within a takeoff procedure increases a pilot’s cognitive load. Next, we used a stacked-LSTM model to predict cognitive workload 5 seconds into the future. The model was able to produce accurate predictions.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.392 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Behavioral and Brain ScienceSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207