ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2019
Theories and Methods for Labeling Cognitive Workload: Classification and Transfer Learning.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- The impact of high involvement work systems on nurses team creative performance in the public service industry of Pakistan.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- EDA, PPG and Skin Temperature as Predictive Signals for Mental Failure by a Statistical Analysis on Stress and Mental Workload.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Cognitive workload estimation using physiological measures: a review.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2024Article
- Applying cognitive task analysis to health services research.Health services research · 2023Article
- Automated Classification of Cognitive Workload Levels Based on Psychophysiological and Behavioural Variables of Ex-Gaussian Distributional Features.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- On the Improvement of Eye Tracking-Based Cognitive Workload Estimation Using Aggregation Functions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Mental workload of frontline nurses aiding in the COVID-19 pandemic: A latent profile analysis.Journal of advanced nursing · 2021Article
- Interpretable Machine Learning Models for Three-Way Classification of Cognitive Workload Levels for Eye-Tracking Features.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Grand Field Challenges for Cognitive Neuroergonomics in the Coming Decade.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2021Article
- P3-MSDA: Multi-Source Domain Adaptation Network for Dynamic Visual Target Detection.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
- Attention Detection in Virtual Environments Using EEG Signals: A Scoping Review.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- A Cyber-Physical-Human System for One-to-Many UAS Operations: Cognitive Load Analysis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are a number of key data-centric questions that must be answered when developing classifiers for operator functional states. "Should a supervised or unsupervised learning approach be used? What degree of labeling and transformation must be performed on the data? What are the trade-offs between algorithm flexibility and model interpretability, as generally these features are at odds?" Here, we focus exclusively on the labeling of cognitive load data for supervised learning. We explored three methods of labeling cognitive states for three-state classification. The first method labels states derived from a tertiary split of trial difficulty during a spatial memory task. The second method was more adaptive; it employed a mixed-effects stress-strain curve and estimated an individual's performance asymptotes with respect to the same spatial memory task. The final method was similar to the second approach; however, it employed a mixed-effects Rasch model to estimate individual capacity limits within the context of item response theory for the spatial memory task. To assess the strength of each of these labeling approaches, we compared the area under the curve (AUC) for receiver operating curves (ROCs) from elastic net and random forest classifiers. We chose these classifiers based on a combination of interpretability, flexibility, and past modeling success. We tested these techniques across two groups of individuals and two tasks to test the effects of different labeling techniques on cross-person and cross-task transfer. Overall, we observed that the Rasch model labeling paired with a random forest classifier led to the best model fits and showed evidence of both cross-person and cross-task transfer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.