ArticleFrontiers in neuroergonomics2022
Living on the edge: How to prepare for it?
Article in Frontiers in neuroergonomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Autonomic regulation across sleep and wake during an Antarctic overwintering.Scientific reports · 2026Observational
- Effects of one year of extreme isolation in Antarctica on olfactory and gustatory functions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Beyond the lab coat: methodological challenges in space life sciences.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Review
- Space Analogs and Behavioral Health Performance Research review and recommendations checklist from ESA Topical Team.NPJ microgravity · 2024Review
- Walk the line: a systemic perspective on stress experienced by emergency medical personnel by comparing military and civilian prehospital settings.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Isolated, confined, and extreme (ICE) environments such as found at Antarctic, Arctic, and other remote research stations are considered space-analogs to study the long duration isolation aspects of operational space mission conditions. Methods: We interviewed 24 sojourners that participated in different short/long duration missions in an Antarctic (Concordia, Halley VI, Rothera, Neumayer II) or non-Antarctic (e.g., MDRS, HI-SEAS) station or in polar treks, offering a unique insight based on first-hand information on the nature of demands by ICE-personnel at multiple levels of functioning. We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis to explore how sojourners were trained, prepared, how they experienced the ICE-impact in function of varieties in environment, provided trainings, station-culture, and type of mission. Results: The ICE-environment shapes the impact of organizational, interpersonal, and individual working- and living systems, thus influencing the ICE-sojourners' functioning. Moreover, more specific training for operating in these settings would be beneficial. The identified pillars such as sensory deprivation, sleep, fatigue, group dynamics, displacement of negative emotions, gender-issues along with coping strategies such as positivity, salutogenic effects, job dedication and collectivistic thinking confirm previous literature. However, in this work, we applied a systemic perspective, assembling the multiple levels of functioning in ICE-environments. Discussion: A systemic approach could serve as a guide to develop future preparatory ICE-training programs, including all the involved parties of the crew system (e.g., family, on-ground crew) with attention for the impact of organization- and station-related subcultures and the risk of unawareness about the impact of poor sleep, fatigue, and isolation on operational safety that may occur on location.
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.