The effects of a dual task on gaze behavior examined during a simulated flight in low-time pilots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive load can impair an operator's ability to optimally scan and process relevant information that is critical to the safe and successful operation of an aircraft. Since the cognitive demands experienced by pilots fluctuate throughout a given flight due to changes in task demands that range from high to low cognitive load, it has become increasingly important to objectively track and quantify these changes accordingly. The analysis of eye movements has been shown to be a promising method to understand information acquisition, processing efficiency, and how these aspects of cognition impact pilot performance. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to assess the impact of a dual task paradigm on low-time pilot flight performance and gaze behavior during two phases of flight with varying levels of cognitive load. Twenty-two licensed pilots (<350 h) completed simulated flight circuits alongside an auditory oddball task under visual flight rules conditions. Self-reported situation awareness scores and auditory task performance revealed the dual task was more demanding than the single tasks. Flight performance and gaze behavior indicated that primary task performance and information processing remained unaffected. These results suggest that the recruited pilots attained a level of skill proficiency that enabled the efficient deployment of cognitive resources to successfully complete the flying task under states of increased cognitive load. Combined with previous research findings, the results suggest that the effect of secondary tasks depends on the type of tasks used (i.e., simple/choice response tasks, memory recall, etc.). The utility of using a dual task and gaze behavior to probe flight proficiency and information processing efficiency throughout training are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".