Cited by 222Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyErgonomics and Human FactorsEmotion and Mood Recognition

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 228 of the 229 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Human Mental Workload: A Survey and a Novel Inclusive Definition

Open access

Abstract

Human mental workload is arguably the most invoked multidimensional construct in Human Factors and Ergonomics, getting momentum also in Neuroscience and Neuroergonomics. Uncertainties exist in its characterization, motivating the design and development of computational models, thus recently and actively receiving support from the discipline of Computer Science. However, its role in human performance prediction is assured. This work is aimed at providing a synthesis of the current state of the art in human mental workload assessment through considerations, definitions, measurement techniques as well as applications, Findings suggest that, despite an increasing number of associated research works, a single, reliable and generally applicable framework for mental workload research does not yet appear fully established. One reason for this gap is the existence of a wide swath of operational definitions, built upon different theoretical assumptions which are rarely examined collectively. A second reason is that the three main classes of measures, which are self-report, task performance, and physiological indices, have been used in isolation or in pairs, but more rarely in conjunction all together. Multiple definitions complement each another and we propose a novel inclusive definition of mental workload to support the next generation of empirical-based research. Similarly, by comprehensively employing physiological, task-performance, and self-report measures, more robust assessments of mental workload can be achieved.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.883321

Cites

228 of 229 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 222 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Kahneman, 1973, Attention and Effort, Volume 1063
  2. Physiological metrics of mental workload: a review of recent progress KramerA. F. Multiple-Task Performance1991
  3. Mental workload of the vts operators by utilising heart rate KumS. FurushoM. DuruO. SatirT. TransNav, International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety od Sea Transportation2007
  4. LazarusR. S. FolkmanS. 28833294Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Springer Publishing Company1984
  5. Miller, 2001, Workload Measures
  6. Mizobuchi, 2005, Mobile text entry: relationship between walking speed and text input task difficulty, 122
  7. Moray, 2013, Mental Workload: Its Theory and Measurement, Vol. 8
  8. Smiley, 1989, Mental workload and information management, 435
  9. Stanton, 1995, Ecological ergonomics: understanding human action in context, Contemporary Ergon, 165, 62
  10. Woods, 2009, Rasmussen's srk 30 years later: Is human factors best in 3's?, 217
  11. Zajonc, 1984, The interaction of affect and cognition
  12. ZijlstraF. Efficiency in work behaviour: a design approach for modern tools (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Repository TU Delft (90-6275-918-1)1993

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 222

Metadata

Authors
Longo, L., Wickens, C. D., Hancock, G., & Hancock, P. A.
Affiliations
  • Technological University Dublin (IE)
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • University of Central Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Longo, Luca
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2022-06-02
Volume
13
Pages
883321-883321
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4281746451
Cited by
222
References
222
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 2
FWCI
6.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Arrow - TU Dublin (Technological University Dublin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Lenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) (submittedVersion)
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 › Artificial Intelligence › Emotion and Mood Recognition
Keywords
mental workload, operational definitions, mental workload assessment, self-report measures, physiological indices, neuroergonomics, human performance prediction

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