MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413765433 · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2025.103589

An in-flight multimodal data collection method for assessing pilot cognitive states and performance in general aviation

2025· article· en· W4413765433 on OpenAlexafffund
Rongbing Xu, Shi Cao, Michael Barnett‐Cowan, Gül Bahar Bülbül, Elizabeth L. Irving, Ewa Niechwiej‐Szwedo, Suzanne K. Kearns

Bibliographic record

VenueMethodsX · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAviationAeronauticsData collectionGeneral aviationComputer scienceCognitionAviation accidentAerospace engineeringEngineeringSystems engineeringArtificial intelligencePsychologyNeuroscienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human factors are central to aviation safety, with pilot cognitive states such as workload, stress, and situation awareness playing important roles in flight performance and safety. Although flight simulators are widely used for training and scientific research, they often lack the ecological validity needed to replicate pilot cognitive states from real flights. To address these limitations, a new in-flight data collection methodology for general aviation using a Cessna 172 aircraft, which is one of the most widely used aircraft for pilot training, is presented. The dataset combines: • Human data from wearable physiological sensors (electroencephalography, electrocardiography, electrodermal activity, and body temperature) and eye-tracking glasses. • Flight data from ADS-B flight recorder. • Pilot's self-reported cognitive states and flight performance rate by instructor. The paper describes the sensor setup, flight task design, and data synchronization procedures. Potential analyses using statistical and machine learning methods are discussed to classify cognitive states and demonstrate the dataset's value. This methodology supports human factors research and has practical value for applications in pilot training, performance evaluation, and aviation safety management. The method was applied in a field study with 25 participants, from which 20 complete multimodal datasets were retained after data cleaning. After collecting additional data, the resulting dataset will support further research on pilot performance and behavior.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.419 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethodsXSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207