ArticleCognitive processing2025
Decision-making during training of a Swedish navy command and control team: a quantitative study of workload effects.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study compared two simulation environments for training of Swedish naval Command and Control teams by using indirect measures, including workload, combat readiness, and situation awareness. The literature explains simulation-based training as providing a safe avenue to practice relevant scenarios. Fidelity, the degree of realism in the simulation, and workload, the equilibrium between demands and assigned tasks, are crucial factors examined in this study of low- and high-fidelity naval simulations. This study was conducted to better understand the effects of various training methods. An experimental design with repeated measures was used with three consecutive escalating parts. The subjective, multidimensional assessment tool, NASA-Task Load Index was used to rate perceived workload. Combat readiness of the ship and mental demand yielded significant results. For combat readiness of the ship, there was a difference between the low and the high-fidelity setting, for the initial part of the scenario p = 0.037 and for the second part p = 0.028. Mental demand was experienced as higher in the low-fidelity setting, p = 0.036. Notably, the simulated internal battle training for onboard command teams in a low-fidelity setting was found to induce a level of stress comparable with that experienced in a high-fidelity setting. The results indicate that low-fidelity training results in a workload not distinguishable from high-fidelity training and has practical implications for increased use of low-fidelity training as part of (naval) command team training programmes.
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.