The effects of wearing pilots’ oxygen masks on cognitive performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analysed cognitive performance of professional pilots in two visual and one acoustical cognitive task while wearing two different kinds of oxygen masks for aircraft. The study was conducted in a simulator environment with a sample of N = 18 French pilots. The air composition was held constant. Compared to baseline performance, there were no performance detriments in the visual tasks when accuracy was analysed. However, wearing the masks slowed down performance speed, although marginally. Also, the detriments were much smaller than the subjective feeling of inhibition as identified in an earlier study. In the acoustical task, a decrease in performance in accuracy and speed could only be observed in multiple task and therefore high workload situations. The underlying mechanisms that might cause the diverse detriments on different stages of cognitive processing are discussed as well as the practical implications, especially for enhancing compliance to professional mask wearing.Practitioner summary: In a simulation experiment, the effects of oxygen mask wearing on cognitive performance were shown to be marginal, although pilots might state feelings of subjective impairment. The results can help to foster mask wearing in pilots.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".