ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
A psychological network analysis of self-reported spatial cognitive strategies in commercial airline pilots and non-pilots.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2026. 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
Objectives: Spatial navigation is a critical skill in aviation. Traditional research focusing on isolated scores cannot reveal the interactive architecture of cognitive components. This study employed psychological network analysis to compare the self-reported spatial cognitive strategy structures of airline pilots and non-pilot controls. Methods: In a cross-sectional design, 110 commercial airline pilots and 203 university students (non-pilot controls) completed self-report measures of spatial anxiety, wayfinding strategies, and sense of direction. Gaussian Graphical Models were used to estimate psychological networks for each group, followed by statistical comparison of their network structures. Results: The pilot group reported greater use of orientation strategies and higher self-rated navigation ability. The global network structure differed significantly between the two groups despite comparable overall connectivity. However, no individual edge or centrality index reached statistical significance after correction, suggesting a distributed rather than hub-driven reconfiguration. All findings were derived from self-report measures and reflect subjective strategy patterns rather than objective cognitive performance. Conclusion: The self-reported spatial strategy networks differed globally between the two groups, although no single edge or node drove the observed effect. These findings may reflect training effects, self-selection, or a combination of both, and the pronounced differences in sex and age distributions between the two groups may also have contributed to the observed network patterns. All inferences are limited to subjective strategy patterns rather than objective cognitive performance.
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.