ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Cognition in the cockpit: assessing instructional modalities in pilot training simulations.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Flight Simulators (FS) play a critical role in pilot training, yet the increasing use of automated modules in FS raises questions about how instructional delivery methods influence learning. This study investigates how different FS instruction modalities affect student pilots' cognitive states and performance. Methods: A between-subjects experiment was conducted with 30 flight-school students using Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 under Visual Flight Rules (VFR). Participants were randomly assigned to one of three instruction modalities: audio-only, text-only, or combined audio-text. Each participant completed two tasks: (1) an instructional flight with guided instructions and (2) a solo evaluation flight without guidance. Measures included visual transition entropy (to assess visual scanning), emotional valence, cognitive load, motivation, and flight performance metrics. Results: During the evaluation flight, the text-only and combined audio-text groups showed significantly lower visual transition entropy, indicating more organized visual scanning. The text-only group also exhibited higher emotional valence, reflecting greater motivation and engagement. No significant differences were found in overall flight performance or cognitive load, although trends suggested higher perceived immersion and motivation in the text-only condition. Discussion: Textual instructional delivery appears to support more efficient visual scanning and greater engagement, aligning with the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning while highlighting its boundary conditions in aviation contexts. Although performance metrics were unaffected in this short session, textual information may be advantageous for specific flight segments and scenarios lacking live instruction. Further research should examine longer or repeated training sessions.
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.