ArticleFrontiers in neuroinformatics2024
Cooperation objective evaluation in aviation: validation and comparison of two novel approaches in simulated environment.
Article in Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smart Wearable EEG Devices: A Review of Lightweight, Multi-Sensor Systems for Sleep and Everyday Neurophysiology.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Multi-method characterization of neurophysiological and biological stress responses in surgical teams during real surgical procedures.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2026Article
- A novel approach for the EEG-driven assessment of divided attention through mutual information theory: A case study at the wheel.PloS one · 2026Article
- A Multimodal Neurophysiological Approach to Evaluate Educational Contents in Terms of Cognitive Processes and Engagement.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Mutual information-based teamwork evaluation in real-world environments: an exploratory investigation with professional surgeons.Frontiers in network physiology · 2025Article
- Optimizing EEG Signal Integrity: A Comprehensive Guide to Ocular Artifact Correction.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In operational environments, human interaction and cooperation between individuals are critical to efficiency and safety. These states are influenced by individuals' cognitive and emotional states. Human factor research aims to objectively quantify these states to prevent human error and maintain constant performances, particularly in high-risk settings such as aviation, where human error and performance account for a significant portion of accidents. Methods: Thus, this study aimed to evaluate and validate two novel methods for assessing the degree of cooperation among professional pilots engaged in real-flight simulation tasks. In addition, the study aimed to assess the ability of the proposed metrics to differentiate between the expertise levels of operating crews based on their levels of cooperation. Eight crews were involved in the experiments, consisting of four crews of Unexperienced pilots and four crews of Experienced pilots. An expert trainer, simulating air traffic management communication on one side and acting as a subject matter expert on the other, provided external evaluations of the pilots' mental states during the simulation. The two novel approaches introduced in this study were formulated based on circular correlation and mutual information techniques. Results and discussion: The findings demonstrated the possibility of quantifying cooperation levels among pilots during realistic flight simulations. In addition, cooperation time is found to be significantly higher (
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.