Physiological stress differentially impacts cognitive performance during—and memory following—simulated police encounters with persons experiencing a mental health crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Police officers frequently make decisions under stress and require accurate memories of their perceptions and actions for subsequent investigations. Recognizing that police are frequently called to assist people experiencing a mental health crisis, it is of critical importance to public safety to understand the role of stress on officers' cognition when navigating such encounters. Despite this, how the timing of experiencing stress impacts officer cognition is understudied in applied police contexts and therefore remains unclear. To address this gap in the literature, we analyzed data from a study of 57 police officers who wore heart rate monitors to record physiological arousal before, during, and after two reality-based scenarios (i.e., simulated calls for service) with individuals experiencing mental distress. Scenarios were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded to measure officers' perceptual memory of important elements in each scene, procedural memory to enact best practices, post-incident memory of their own actions, and higher-level situational understanding. We found a nuanced relationship between the timing of stress and cognitive performance, such that higher heart rate before and during scenarios improved understanding, decision making, and the appropriate choice of use of force option, but at the expense of officers' spatial processing. Increased heart rate during the post-incident debrief was associated with the following: making a lethal force error during the scenario, decreased memory for perceptual aspects of the scenario, and impaired recall of one's own actions. Older and more experienced officers exhibited overall lower physiological arousal, and female officers demonstrated better cognitive performance compared to male officers. These results have practical implications in operational, training, evaluation, and testimonial police contexts and can inform future interventions aimed to improve outcomes when navigating stressful encounters, including crisis intervention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".