Cited by 115Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlTeam Dynamics and PerformanceHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety

Physiological compliance and team performance

Elkins, Amanda N., Muth, Eric R., Hoover, Adam W., Walker, Alexander D., Carpenter, Thomas L., Switzer, Fred S.·2009·Applied Ergonomics

Abstract

Physiological compliance (PC) refers to the correlation between physiological measures of team members over time. The goals of this study were to examine ways of measuring PC in heart rate variability (HRV) data and the relationship between PC and team performance. Teams were tasked with entering both real and simulated rooms and "shooting" individuals with a weapon and identifying individuals without a weapon. The linear correlation and directional agreement PC methods were shown to be the most sensitive to differences in performance, with greater PC being associated with better performance. The correlation method when applied to a measure of respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) revealed a significant difference between high and low performers (t[8]=-2.31, p=0.03) and the directional agreement applied to inter-beat-intervals and RSA revealed trend-level differences (t[4.62]=-1.86, p=0.06 and t[8]=-1.68, p=0.07). These results suggest that PC may have merit for predicting team performance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apergo.2009.02.002

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In 10 four-person teams performing a military training task, better team performance was associated with higher physiological synchrony in respiratory sinus arrhythmia.

    “Another study of 10 four-person teams who performed a military training task showed that better team performance was associated with higher physiological synchrony in measures of respiratory sinus arrhythmia50.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Elkins, A. N., Muth, E. R., Hoover, A. W., Walker, A. D., Carpenter, T. L., & Switzer, F. S.
Affiliations
Clemson University (US)
Corresponding author
Muth, Eric R.
Venue
Applied Ergonomics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-11
Volume
40
Issue
6
Pages
997-1003
ISSN
0003-6870 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2053432932
Cited by
115
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Applied Ergonomics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Keywords
team performance, heart rate variability, respiratory sinus arrhythmia, RR interval, team dynamics, performance prediction
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Adolescent, Adult, Arrhythmia, Sinus, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Oxygen Consumption, Respiratory System, Statistics as Topic, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review