The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Psychophysiological Assessment of Operator Workload During Simulated Flight Missions
Abstract
Previous research has indicated that components of the event-related potential (ERP) may be used to quantify the resource requirements of complex cognitive tasks. The present study was designed to explore the degree to which these results could be generalized to complex, real-world tasks. The study also examined the relations among performance-based, subjective, and psychophysiological measures of operator workload. Seven male volunteers, enrolled in an instrument flight rule (IFR) aviation course at the University of Illinois, participated in the study. The student pilots flew a series of IFR flight missions in a single-engine, fixed-based simulator. In dual-task conditions subjects were also required to discriminate between two tones differing in frequency and to make an occasional overt response. ERPs time-locked to the tones, subjective effort ratings, and overt performance measures were collected during two separate 45-min flights differing in difficulty. The difficult flight was associated with high subjective effort ratings, as well as increased deviations from the command altitude, heading, and glideslope. The P300 component of the ERP discriminated among levels of task difficulty, decreasing in amplitude with increased task demands. Within-flight demands were examined by dividing each flight into four segments: takeoff, straight and level flight, holding patterns, and landings. The amplitude of the P300 was negatively correlated with deviations from command headings across the flight segments. In sum, the findings provide preliminary evidence for the assertion that ERP components can be employed as metrics of resource allocation in complex, real-world environments.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact
Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1983) · Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/0013-4694(83)90135-9 · Cited by 5,055
Cited by
On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity
Kok, A. (2001) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1017/s0048577201990559 · Cited by 1,766
Gevins, A. (2000) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/10.9.829 · Cited by 599
Monitoring Working Memory Load during Computer-Based Tasks with EEG Pattern Recognition Methods
Gevins, A., Smith, M. E., Leong, H., McEvoy, L., Whitfield, S., Du, R., & Rush, G. (1998) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872098779480578 · Cited by 535
Event-related-potential (ERP) reflections of mental resource̊s: a review and synthesis
Kok, A. (1997) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0301-0511(96)05221-0 · Cited by 447
(2007) · Cited by 339
Metadata
- Authors
- Kramer, A. F., Sirevaag, E. J., & Braune, R.
- Venue
- Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1987-04
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 145-160
- ISSN
- 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-8181
- OpenAlex
- W1929391444
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Psychophysiological Assessment of Operator Workload During Simulated Flight Missions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/001872088702900203
- The paper
- Kramer, A. F., Sirevaag, E. J., & Braune, R. (1987). A Psychophysiological Assessment of Operator Workload During Simulated Flight Missions. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088702900203
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.