An in-flight multimodal data collection method for assessing pilot cognitive states and performance in general aviation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it