The DOI matches its Crossref record; 406 of the 406 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 95 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
State of science: mental workload in ergonomics
Open accessAbstract
Mental workload (MWL) is one of the most widely used concepts in ergonomics and human factors and represents a topic of increasing importance. Since modern technology in many working environments imposes ever more cognitive demands upon operators while physical demands diminish, understanding how MWL impinges on performance is increasingly critical. Yet, MWL is also one of the most nebulous concepts, with numerous definitions and dimensions associated with it. Moreover, MWL research has had a tendency to focus on complex, often safety-critical systems (e.g. transport, process control). Here we provide a general overview of the current state of affairs regarding the understanding, measurement and application of MWL in the design of complex systems over the last three decades. We conclude by discussing contemporary challenges for applied research, such as the interaction between cognitive workload and physical workload, and the quantification of workload 'redlines' which specify when operators are approaching or exceeding their performance tolerances.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This state-of-science review traces mental workload (MWL) research in ergonomics from definition and measurement to application, arguing that MWL remains a multidimensional and still-nebulous construct. It highlights transport as the dominant applied domain and identifies neuroergonomics and the quantification of workload “redlines” as key future challenges.
Key findings
- Ergo-Abs searches show MWL references rising from 58 hits in the 1980s to 140 in the 1990s and 191 in the 2000s; the 2000s decade-on-decade increase was 36% for “mental workload” versus 17% for “physical workload” and “workload.”
- Applied MWL publications increased as a proportion of the field: 26% in the 1980s, 39% in the 1990s, and 46% in the 2000s; transport dominated, especially driving (40 total papers, including 28 in the 2000s), aviation (19), ATC (17), and rail (12).
- Both overload and underload can degrade performance, with an optimum range of MWL; measurement typically uses primary/secondary task performance, subjective reports (e.g. NASA-TLX, SWAT, RSME), and physiological metrics (e.g. heart rate, heart rate variability, EEG, facial muscle activity, NIRS).
- The paper reports approximate redlines such as working memory at roughly seven chunks, relational complexity at roughly three interacting relations, tracking bandwidth at roughly one cycle per second, and timeline analysis TR/TA, with Parks and Boucek suggesting errors begin around the 80% level rather than 100%.
Methods
- Narrative state-of-science review, not an empirical study; no primary data collection or participants are reported.
- Uses decade-by-decade searches of the Ergo-Abs database for “mental workload,” “physical workload,” and “workload,” plus a title-field search of “mental workload” categorized into broad application areas.
- Synthesizes conceptual, measurement, and application literature across the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, with discussion of current and future challenges.
Limitations
- Stated: the applied review “is not intended to be an exhaustive review”; application categorization was selective and based on the most obvious theme from title and abstract; database coverage grew over time, partly inflating later counts.
- Stated: MWL remains “just as nebulous a concept today as it did three decades ago”; research has failed to provide absolute limits on human performance, and underload lacks a widely accepted theory, making its redline especially elusive.
- Evident from the text: the review is narrative and selective rather than systematic, and the authors note that dissociation among workload measures complicates interpretation and that absolute workload prediction remains difficult.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
71 Not checked yet · 57 No basis given · 28 Own interpretation · 11 Own result
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A search of Ergo-Abs (the Ergonomics Abstracts online database, which covers international books, journals and conference proceedings across a variety of ergonomics-related fields) over the last three decades (which reflects the vast majority of sources indexed in the database) shows that references to 'mental workload' have increased more than threefold since the 1980s (see Table 1).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The Ergo-Abs database search results are representative of the broader MWL literature.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of thematic trends within the MWL applications themselves, it is interesting to note the peak in software engineering and/or computer-aided design (CAD) in the 1980s, but the clear dominance of transport-related applications (e.g. air traffic control, aviation, driving and rail) from the 1990s onwards.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The categorisation of publications into application areas based on title and abstract is valid for identifying thematic trends.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of thematic trends within the MWL applications themselves, it is interesting to note the peak in software engineering and/or computer-aided design (CAD) in the 1980s, but the clear dominance of transport-related applications (e.g. air traffic control, aviation, driving and rail) from the 1990s onwards.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The categorisation of publications into application areas based on title and abstract is valid for identifying thematic trends.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of these, driving stands out as a particular focus area especially in the last decade, although we should also note the rapid growth of MWL research in the rail industry, reflecting the resurgence in ergonomics and human factors interest within this domain (e.g. Wilson and Norris 2005).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The categorisation of publications into application areas based on title and abstract is valid for identifying thematic trends.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When taken in conjunction with the pattern of results observed in Table 1, this represents some 46% of the total publications in the field for that decade.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A review of trends in applied MWL research over time supports this assumption, showing a much higher proportion of publications relating to applications in recent years.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The categorisation of publications into application areas based on title and abstract is valid for identifying thematic trends.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The result of this search shows that the first decade of the twenty-first century saw a total of 87 publications concerning specific applications of MWL.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The categorisation of publications into application areas based on title and abstract is valid for identifying thematic trends.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared to the 1990s (39%) and the 1980s (26%), this would seem to suggest a relative increase in focus on applications from the earlier publications on MWL to the present.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, the contribution of physical demands to MWL is often neglected in applied research, despite the oft-quoted analogy between mental and physical load, as well as numerous other implicit and explicit acknowledgements of its influence.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A key part of this problem is that a widely accepted theory of underload does not yet exist - and if we cannot describe a concept, we will certainly struggle to quantify it.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 68
- It may state two separate claims as one. 48
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Research in the 1990s was also concerned with the proliferation of automation, and a significant body of work was directed at the emergence of more advanced physiological metrics of workload.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the relative decade-on-decade increase in hits for MWL in the 2000s suggests a more recent prominence over the comparator terms - 36% for 'mental workload' against 17% for 'physical workload' and 'workload'.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The relative increase in MWL hits over comparator terms indicates a genuine increase in prominence rather than only database coverage.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A cursory review of these search results indicates that the focus in the 1980s was much more on the measurement of MWL, while the 1990s saw a shift towards theoretical developments and modelling efforts.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A cursory review of these search results indicates that the focus in the 1980s was much more on the measurement of MWL, while the 1990s saw a shift towards theoretical developments and modelling efforts.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the first decade of the twenty-first century has seen more examples of MWL applications coming to the fore.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Of these, driving stands out as a particular focus area especially in the last decade, although we should also note the rapid growth of MWL research in the rail industry, reflecting the resurgence in ergonomics and human factors interest within this domain (e.g. Wilson and Norris 2005).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wilson and Norris 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The categorisation of publications into application areas based on title and abstract is valid for identifying thematic trends.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Another theme emerging from this review surrounds the impacts of skill (or experience) and age on MWL, which can, more generally, be related to the still unsolved puzzle of individual differences (see Damos 1988; Szalma 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Damos 1988
- Not checked yetcites Szalma 2009
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The predominance of transport applications among MWL research over the last two decades cannot be ignored.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The other key theme in the 1980s was on adaptive interfaces.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The theoretical underload redline does exist and is illustrated on Figure 2, but identifying or quantifying it remains elusive.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We would certainly not wish to claim that progress in measurement or definition has ended; MWL looks to be just as nebulous a concept today as it did three decades ago, and researchers continue to debate over definitions to this day.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But we know this is not the case; underload is just as bad for performance as overload, and leads to the classic inverted-U curve as illustrated in the figures.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The field has developed from tackling the thorny issue of defining the concept, through the development of metrics of MWL, to the more recent focus on applied research, which, in turn, reflects the technological and societal concerns of our times.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is particularly the case as technology progresses in areas such as transportation, which has already dominated the MWL scene in recent years.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While this notion offers a neat hypothetical explanation of underload and overload, it still does not let us quantify or predict these redlines in an applied setting.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, in measurement, new neuroergonomics techniques are emerging as strong contenders for finally ascertaining the physiological correlates of mental demand.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Research in this field has so far failed to provide absolute limits on human performance due to the complex nature of the subject and of the processes involved.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Earlier in the paper, we reviewed research from the 1980s promising workload-based adaptive automation. Some 25 years later, that promise is yet to be fulfilled.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Mental workload (MWL) is one of the most widely invoked concepts in ergonomics research and practice (Flemisch and Onken 2002; Loft et al. 2007; Parasuraman and Hancock 2001; Tsang and Vidulich 2006; Wickens 2008).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Flemisch and Onken 2002
- Not checked yetcites Loft et al. 2007
- Not checked yetcites Parasuraman and Hancock 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“It is easier to state what underload is not: it is not vigilance (since the consensus has been for some time that vigilant monitoring is actually a highly demanding task; Warm, Dember, and Hancock 1996) nor is it boredom (usually it is about doing very little rather than doing nothing at all).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Warm, Dember, and Hancock 1996
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Indeed, the current opinion is that there is an optimum range of MWL which is associated with best performance (Hancock and Warm 1989; see also Figure 1).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hancock and Warm 1989
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Automatic processing is associated with expert performance and is characteristically fast, unconscious and almost completely liberated from attentional resource constraints.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schneider and Shiffrin 1977
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If demands begin to exceed capacity, skilled operators can either adjust their strategy to compensate or else performance necessarily degrades.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, it is probably fair to say that the jury is out as to whether underload is distinct from other influences on performance such as automation-related complacency and supervisory control.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There may also be different kinds of resources available, as in other team members, or technological support to cope with demand.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, there is no direct guarantee that simply reducing MWL improves performance, and in fact the opposite may be true.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fixed resource models of workload are not without their drawbacks, though. For instance, absolute capacity demands are illusive; they do not directly consider nonattentional factors, such as experience, or more slowly changing variation in attentional resources due to learning or the reduction of capacity with age, or even the willingness to invest effort.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although numerous definitions have been offered, it is obvious that there is no universal agreement between these disparate statements.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is easier to state what underload is not: it is not vigilance (since the consensus has been for some time that vigilant monitoring is actually a highly demanding task; Warm, Dember, and Hancock 1996) nor is it boredom (usually it is about doing very little rather than doing nothing at all).”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Demands (stress) can have multiple facets, such as time pressure and task complexity.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The converse is controlled processing, and in the practical world these two elements lie on a continuum.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Suboptimal workload can mean either overload or underload (Brookhuis and de Waard 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brookhuis and de Waard 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MWLhasthus become a topic of increasing importance as modern technology imposes ever greater cognitive demands.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, if effort is invested, then MWL will be increased (cf. Shaw et al. 2013) - which may be a positive adaptation in circumstances of underload, but could be further detrimental when faced with overload.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is consistent with the attentional resources approach, as automatic processing releases attentional resources for other tasks, with a resulting decrease in MWL.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, MWL as a multidimensional construct, is determined by characteristics of the task (e.g. demands, performance), of the operator (e.g. skill, attention) and, to a degree, the environmental context in which the performance occurs.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the present authors' view, there has to be some engagement in the task, but such engagement is exceptionally low.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Underload itself, while an intuitive concept, is in many ways a more nebulous term than MWL, as different researchers take it to mean different things.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From this view, MWL in real-world tasks is determined by the balance of automatic and controlled processing involved.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“That said, there is a strong consensus that mental underload can be just as detrimental to performance as mental overload, with both leading to performance degradation, attentional lapses and errors (Wilson and Rajan 1995).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wilson and Rajan 1995
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are, however, commonalities among the various interpretations, which do help to shed light here.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although the stress/strain comparison has been criticised for being too simplistic (e.g. Bainbridge 1974), even the international standard on MWL (ISO 10075, 2000) is heavily dependent on the analogy for its terminology.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites ISO 10075, 2000
- Not checked yetcites Bainbridge 1974
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“MWL is a peculiar concept that has intuitive appeal, but remains surprisingly difficult to define (see also situation awareness; Smith and Hancock 1995).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Smith and Hancock 1995
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Finally, the trade-off between stress and strain may have different effects on the human - as measured by the different objective and subjective metrics which we describe later (see, e.g., Bevan and Macleod 1994).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bevan and Macleod 1994
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Resources, in this arena of discussion, often refer to attentional resources (e.g. Wickens 1980, 2002); thus, MWL becomes a product of the resources available to meet task demands (Welford 1978).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Welford 1978
- Not checked yetcites Wickens 1980, 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“An analogy is often made between mental and physical load, in that each expresses two components - stress (i.e. task demands) and strain (impact on the human; cf. Schlegel 1993).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schlegel 1993
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, performance can be maintained at the cost of individual strain or vice versa.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overload occurs, for instance, when the operator is faced with more stimuli than (s)he is able to handle while maintaining their own standards of performance.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As workload increases, the response time to, and the chance of missing, a signal increases.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Visual perception is crucial for drivers while concurrent execution of another in-vehicle visual task (for instance, looking at a cell phone) competes for visual attention with the primary driving task.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“MWL can increase heart rate and decrease heart rate variability at the same time.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Physiological measures are a natural type of workload index since work demands physiological activity by definition.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So far, these methods have been restricted to laboratory conditions, and the equipment is extremely expensive to purchase and use.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Recently, Posner (2012) illustrated that new methods to study human operators at work are gaining momentum, advancing our understanding of brain plasticity.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Posner 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Other measures of interest are the activity of the brain (Brookhuis and de Waard 1993; de Waard and Brookhuis 1991) and of certain facial muscles, such as the corrugator supercilii (Hoogendoorn et al. 2010; Jessurun, Steyvers, and Brookhuis 1993).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brookhuis and de Waard 1993
- Not checked yetcites de Waard and Brookhuis 1991
- Not checked yetcites Hoogendoorn et al. 2010
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Closely coupled to heart rate and also sensitive to workload is blood pressure (Rau 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rau 2004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Suboptimal workload may also emerge from disruptions in the operator's physiology, for instance when under stress (Hancock and Warm 1989), although other non-workload stressors (such as from the environment or sleep loss) can influence these indices.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hancock and Warm 1989
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the complex, safety-critical systems where MWL research is usually most pertinent and/or most pursued (such as transport, as we shall see later), both underload and overload are very real concerns.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Operator conditions in fixed positions such as operating motor vehicles, trains and airplanes are suitable for this next generation of MWL field studies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While numerous physiological measures are now relatively easily measured in the operational environment, attention is less easily monitored in ambulant situations - but not impossible.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“MWLis a subjective state as well; people are able to express themselves in words or indications on scales in post-task responses (Zijlstra 1993).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zijlstra 1993
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Beta activity (1230 Hz) is predominant when the participant in the study is generally awake and alert, while the activity dropping to Alpha activity (8-12 Hz) indicates developing drowsiness, and going further down into the theta region (5-8 Hz) may even lead to falling asleep.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As we have noted, the multidimensional nature of MWL is reflected in the variety of workload metrics available (see also, e.g. Gawron 2008).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gawron 2008
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But while both low and high MWL are undoubtedly basic precursors to errors, an exact relationship between MWL and accident causation is not easily established, let alone measured in practice.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Modern integrated, wireless measurement facilities enable more easily accessible EEG measurement (e.g. Makeig et al. 2002), while more integrated approaches such as neuroergonomics, suggested by Parasuraman (2011), open new windows to the study of MWL.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Parasuraman 2011
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The PDT is based on the premise that visual attention narrows as workload increases.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Driving on an urban road with traffic, traffic signs and traffic lights leads to increased workload according to these measures (high heart rate, low variability), which immediately reverses when the driver stops if one of the lights turns red.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites De Waard 1996
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Modern integrated, wireless measurement facilities enable more easily accessible EEG measurement (e.g. Makeig et al. 2002), while more integrated approaches such as neuroergonomics, suggested by Parasuraman (2011), open new windows to the study of MWL.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Makeig et al. 2002
- Not checked yetcites Parasuraman 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Brookhuis and de Waard (2000) discriminated between underload and overload by referring to error sources, the former leading to reduced alertness and lowered attention, the latter to distraction, diverted attention and insufficient time for adequate information processing.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brookhuis and de Waard 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In fact, recent research has explored the interaction between physical and MWL across some of these metrics, espousing the idea that light physical activity could actually compensate for the deficits imposed by mental underload (Basahel, Young, and Ajovalasit 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Basahel, Young, and Ajovalasit 2010
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Both physical workload and MWL are well known to have a clear impact on heart rate, heart rate variability and respiration (Mulder 1992), and delineating the effects of one over the other can prove troublesome in applied research.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mulder 1992
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the central region, workload gradually increases while performance is at its best, remaining relatively constant.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the apparent concern is more with overload than underload, it is clear that issues of optimising workload and defining workload 'redlines' or thresholds have occupied researchers since some of the earliest work in this field.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Thus, higher task demand leading to increased MWL does not have to affect performance, and not all measures have to be strongly correlated.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites de Waard 1996
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Also, Hayashi (1988; Hayashi and Kosugo 1987) examined the MWL of software engineers in programming tasks.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hayashi 1988
- Not checked yetcites Hayashi and Kosugo 1987
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“If one measure reflects an increase in workload and another measure does not, then measures are said to dissociate (see also Hancock 1996; Yeh and Wickens 1988).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hancock 1996
- Not checked yetcites Yeh and Wickens 1988
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“All of this chimes with recent suggestions that mind and body cannot be separated in ergonomics research (cf. Marras and Hancock 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Marras and Hancock 2014
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Similarly, Nowakowski (1987) was also concerned with online MWL assessment for a knowledge-based adaptive system, with a particular focus on individual differences between users.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nowakowski 1987
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For instance, glass cockpits in commercial aircraft have relieved workload in some areas, such as reduced display clutter and more automated flight procedures. However, the same systems have increased workload in other areas, such as more decision options in any given situation (Hilburn 1997), and confusion with respect to operating modes (Ferris, Wickens, and Sarter 2010; Sarter and Woods 1995).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hilburn 1997
- Not checked yetcites Ferris, Wickens, and Sarter 2010
- Not checked yetcites Sarter and Woods 1995
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The problem with some automation is that it reduces workload when demand is low but problematically increases workload when demand is high. This tendency is evident when the automation is 'dumb and dutiful' as Wiener (1989) cast it.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wiener 1989
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Dissociation has usually been reported between self-reports and measures of performance, and sometimes between physiological and self-report measures (Myrtek et al. 1994).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Myrtek et al. 1994
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notwithstanding the progress reported here, the measurement of mental work is founded on the science of psychology and comparatively speaking, psychology is an immature, if no less difficult, science.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Count variables can be used to predict absolute workload values, both above and below the redline, but multitask interference models cannot easily do so at the current stage of their maturity.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In any resource-limited system, the most relevant measure of demand is specified relative to the supply of available resources.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These metrics suggest a resolution of the physical versus MWL question, and perhaps even augur the potential to quantify workload and those redlines of performance.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It has been suggested (Perrey, Thedon, and Rupp 2010; Shaw et al. 2013) that metrics of brain oxygenation could essentially represent a quantitative measure of attentional resources.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Perrey, Thedon, and Rupp 2010
- Not checked yetcites Shaw et al. 2013
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example we have noted the redline for working memory at roughly seven chunks of information.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, alongside these evident scientific concerns, the need to assess mental work is also very much fuelled by the ever-present practical necessity to measure mental activity and allocate tasks in the modern electronic workplace.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Alternatively, low demands could be misperceived by the operator, leading to a mismatch in terms of effort invested to perform the task (Matthews and Desmond 1997).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Matthews and Desmond 1997
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many of the measures are also differentially sensitive in the different regions.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Young and Stanton's research into vehicle automation led them to propose a theory whereby attentional resources shrink in situations of low workload, thus leading to problems when demands suddenly increase (see Young and Stanton 2002).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Young and Stanton 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The redlines of both underload and overload coincide with the points where the demand and resource lines cross over; performance degrades in both regions of underload and overload when demands exceed resources.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As we have already seen earlier in this paper, effort is voluntary and is related to resource investment (cf. Shaw et al. 2013), so this could be compatible with Young and Stanton's (2002) idea.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shaw et al. 2013
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, it is reasonable to suggest that the applied problems will assume even greater prominence as we move forward.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Advances in mobile and wearable computing, augmented reality and similar technologies no doubt present great challenges for MWL research in the near future.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is reflected (albeit with some artistic licence) in Figure 2, as resource supply (based on activation and/or effort) at first lags behind task demands in the underload region, then exceeds it until resources start to asymptote towards the upper capacity limit, and we reach overload.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These advances also reflect and further emphasise the role of mental work over physical work in the modern workplace.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here, very low workload is often coupled with fatigue and automationrelated complacency. Then the sudden unexpected failure rapidly throws the operator into a highly stressful fault diagnosis and failure management mode, well above the redline, in such a way that the prior loss of situation awareness has rendered them unprepared.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The Ergo-Abs database search results are representative of the broader MWL literature.
“A search of Ergo-Abs (the Ergonomics Abstracts online database, which covers international books, journals and conference proceedings across a variety of ergonomics-related fields) over the last three decades (which reflects the vast majority of sources indexed in the database) shows that references to 'mental workload' have increased more than threefold since the 1980s (see Table 1).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The categorisation of publications into application areas based on title and abstract is valid for identifying thematic trends.
“There is an element of selectivity in this: the categorisation process being necessarily one of independent determination and based on the most obvious theme from the title and abstract of the publication and where the application was the main focus of the paper (as opposed to focusing on a workload metric albeit in a particular application).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The relative increase in MWL hits over comparator terms indicates a genuine increase in prominence rather than only database coverage.
“This increase no doubt partly reflects the growing coverage of the database in more recent years, as evidenced by equivalent searches for 'physical workload' and 'workload'. Nevertheless, the relative decade-on-decade increase in hits for MWL in the 2000s suggests a more recent prominence over the comparator terms - 36% for 'mental workload' against 17% for 'physical workload' and 'workload'.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Timeline analysis assumes that workload is proportional to the ratio of the time occupied performing tasks to total time available.
“In a simplified but readily usable version, it assumes that workload is proportional to the ratio of the time occupied performing tasks to total time available.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Assessing mental workload as a multidimensional context-dependent construct is generally done by a combination of self-report, performance, and physiological indicators rather than by any single measure alone (Young et al., 2015; Longo et al., 2022; Hart and Staveland, 1988).”
From Enhancement of modern defense capabilities by convergence of cognitive neuroscience and artificial intelligence (2026) · cites this paper as Young et al., 2015
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 1. Context · p. 2
“Thus, the general evolution of research in MWL has progressed from trying to measure it, through trying to define it, to the real-world applications of it today.”
§ 6. Summary and conclusions · p. 12
“The field has developed from tackling the thorny issue of defining the concept, through the development of metrics of MWL, to the more recent focus on applied research, which, in turn, reflects the technological and societal concerns of our times.”
Citations
Cites
Items 401–406 of 406
Mental Workload in Simple and Complicated Computer Aided Design.
Järvenpää, E., & Teikair, V. (1987) · International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction · Cited by 1
Personalized Recognition of Mental Workload in Human-Computer System.
Nowakowski, W. (1987) · International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction · Cited by 1
PREDICTIVE AIDS IN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL: SITUATION AWARENESS AND MENTAL WORKLOAD IMPLICATIONS
Nunes, A., & Matthews, M. L. (2002) · Cited by 1
Schlorholtz, B., & Schieber, F. (2006) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e577762012-006 · Cited by 1
Queuing network modeling of age differences in driver mental workload and performance
Wu, C., & Liu, Y. (2006) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e577562012-005 · Cited by 1
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- Aoyama, T., and M.Umemura. 1991. “An Examination of the Mental Workload of Design Work in Offices.” In Towards Human Work: Solutions to Problems in Occupational Health and Safety, edited by M.Kumashiro, and E. D.Megaw, 243–249. London: Taylor & Francis.
- Bainbridge L., 1974, Le Travail Humain, 37, 279
- Basahel, A. M., M. S.Young, and M.Ajovalasit. 2010. “Effects of Interaction between Physical and Mental Workload on Human Performance.” In Contemporary Ergonomics and Human Factors 2010, edited by M.Anderson, 598–601. London: Taylor & Francis.
- 2014, InProceedings of the HFES International Annual Meeting
- 2010, Chap. 5.7 in NASA Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH), 190
- Hayashi Y., 1988, Journal of Science of Labour, 64, 257
- Hayashi Y., 1987, Journal of Science of Labour, 63, 351
- Jarvenpaa, E.1990. “Mental Workload in Different Phases of the Implementation of New Technology: The Implementation of Office Automation as an Example.” In Proceedings of the International Ergonomics Association Conference on Human Factors in Design for Manufacturability and Process Planning , 159–163.
- Kuriyagawa, Y., and I. Kageyama. 2003. “A Study on the Evaluation Model of Mental Workload for Drivers.” In Ergonomics in the Digital Age. Proceedings of the XVth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association and the 7th Joint Conference of the Ergonomics Society of Korea and the Japan Ergonomics Society .
- Lenior, T. M. J., and M. P.Gobel. 1997. “Predicting Mental Workload for Train Traffic Control Tasks.” In From Experience to Innovation - IEA ’97. Proceedings of the 13th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, edited by P.Seppala, T.Luopajarvi, C. H.Nygard, and M.Mattila, 358–360. Finnish Institut.
- Loewenthal, A., M.Chignell, and P.Hancock. 1985. “Use of Mental Workload Measures in Interface Design.” In IEEE 1985 Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, 624–626. New York: IEEE.
- Low, I.2003. “Assessment of the Impact on Mental Workload from Advanced Air Traffic Management Systems: A Diagnostic Tool.” In Ergonomics in the Digital Age. Proceedings of the XVth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association and the 7th Joint Conference of the Ergonomics Society of Korea and the Japan Ergonomics Society .
- Pickup, L., J.Wilson, and T.Clarke. 2003. “Mental Workload of the Railway Signaller.” In Contemporary Ergonomics, edited by P. T.McCabe, 397–402. London: Taylor & Francis.
- Schlegel, R. E.1993. “Driver Mental Workload.” In Automotive Ergonomics, edited by B.Peacock, and W.Karwowski, 359–382. London: Taylor & Francis.
- Wickens, C., T.Bagnall, M.Gosakan, and B.Walters. 2011. “Modeling Single Pilot Control of Multiple UAVs.” In Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, available in CD-ROM format edited by M.Vidulich, and P.Tsang. Dayton, OH: Wright State University.
- Wickens, C. D., and J. G.Hollands. 2000. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. 3rd ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
- Wilson, J. R., and J. A.Rajan. 1995. “Human-Machine Interfaces for Systems Control.” In Evaluation of Human Work: A Practical Ergonomics Methodology, edited by J. R.Wilson, and E. N.Corlett, 357–405. London: Taylor & Francis.
- Young M. S., 1997, International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 1, 325
- Young, M., and N.Stanton. 1998. “What's Skill Got to Do with It? Vehicle Automation and Driver Mental Workload.” In Contemporary Ergonomics 1998, edited by M. A.Hanson, 436–440. London: Taylor & Francis.
- Young, M. S., and N. A.Stanton. 2005. “Mental workload.” In Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods, edited by N. A.Stanton, A.Hedge, K.Brookhuis, E.Salas, and H. W.Hendrick. Chap. 39. London: Taylor & Francis.
- Zijlstra, F. R. H.1993. “Efficiency in Work Behavior. A Design Approach for Modern Tools.” PhD diss., Delft University of Technology. Delft: Delft University Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
EEG power spectral measures of cognitive workload: A meta‐analysis
Chikhi, S., Matton, N., & Blanchet, S. (2022) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.14009 · Cited by 258
Human Mental Workload: A Survey and a Novel Inclusive Definition
Longo, L., Wickens, C. D., Hancock, G., & Hancock, P. A. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.883321 · Cited by 222
Self-citationShan, Y., Shang, J., Yan, Y., & Ye, X. (2023) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-023-01209-9 · Cited by 79
Cosic, K., Kuljanac, A., & Palermo, S. (2026) · Frontiers in psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1821242 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Young, M. S., Brookhuis, K. A., Wickens, C. D., & Hancock, P. A.
- Affiliations
- Brunel University of London (GB)
- University of Groningen (NL)
- University of Central Florida (US)
- Corresponding author
- Young, Mark S.
- Venue
- Ergonomics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-12-02
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-17
- ISSN
- 0014-0139 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-5847
- OpenAlex
- W2076883103
- Cited by
- 948
- References
- 406
- Citations by year
- 2026: 104 · 2025: 117 · 2024: 85 · 2023: 101 · 2022: 98 · 2021: 102 · 2020: 85 · 2019: 84 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 19
- FWCI
- 4.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Ergonomics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Ergonomics and Human Factors
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- mental workload, workload measurement, operator performance, complex system design, physical workload, safety-critical systems, human factors
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Humans, Ergonomics, Task Performance and Analysis, Workload
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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