MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405114405 · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2434767

Evaluating Pilot Mental Workload Using fNIRS-Based Functional Connectivity Features with a Deep Residual Shrinkage Network Under Emergency Flight Scenarios

2024· article· en· W4405114405 on OpenAlexaff
Chenyang Zhang, Shihan Luo, Shi Cao, Yu Zhang, Chen Hua, Chaozhe Jiang, Yue Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsWorkloadResidualComputer scienceFunctional connectivityArtificial intelligencePsychologyNeuroscienceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Excessive mental workload can lead to less remaining resources for pilots to perform concurrent tasks during emergency flights, affecting aviation safety. Based on a flight simulator, this study investigated 25 cadet pilots using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and subjective ratings to assess their mental workload under three subtasks with different equipment failures. fNIRS data included oxyhemoglobin, deoxyhemoglobin, and total hemoglobin signals, yielding 10545 functional connectivity (FC) features from four brain regions: prefrontal, right motor, left motor, and occipital cortexes. A deep residual shrinkage network classified mental workload levels, outperforming convolutional neural network and random forest models with 89.58% accuracy after feature selection employing an interpretable machine learning algorithm. The results suggest that brain FC from three hemoglobin signals could be used to differentiate the three different levels of pilot mental workload. This study could contribute to improving pilot training and supporting the development of pilots’ competencies during emergency scenarios.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Human-Computer InteractionSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207