Military tactical adaptive decision making during simulated military operational stress is influenced by personality, resilience, aerobic fitness, and neurocognitive function
Open accessAbstract
Laboratory-based studies designed to mimic combat or military field training have consistently demonstrated deleterious effects on warfighter's physical, cognitive, and emotional performance during simulated military operational stress (SMOS). Purpose: The present investigation sought to determine the impact of a 48-h simulated military operational stress (SMOS) on military tactical adaptive decision making, and the influence of select psychological, physical performance, cognitive, and physiological outcome measures on decision making performance. Methods: = 48, 26.2 ± 5.5 years, 177.7 ± 6.6 cm, 84.7 ± 14.1 kg.) subjects currently serving in the U.S. military were eligible to participate in this study. Eligible subjects completed a 96-h protocol that occurred over five consecutive days and four nights. Day 2 (D2) and day 3 (D3) consisted of 48-h of SMOS wherein sleep opportunity and caloric needs were reduced to 50%. Differences in SPEAR total block score from baseline to peak stress (D3 minus D1) were calculated to assess change in military tactical adaptive decision making and groups were stratified based on increase (high adaptors) or decrease (low adaptors) of the SPEAR change score. Results: < 0.001). Conclusion: The present findings suggest that service members whose adaptive decision making abilities improved throughout SMOS (i.e., high adaptors) demonstrated better baseline psychological/self-reported resilience and aerobic capacity. Further, changes in adaptive decision-making were distinct from those of lower order cognitive functions throughout SMOS exposure. With the transition of future military conflicts placing higher priority on enhancing and sustaining cognitive readiness and resiliency, data presented here demonstrates the importance of measuring and categorizing baseline measures inherent to military personnel, in order to change and train one's ability to suffer less of a decline during high stress conditions.
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
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.
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 convergence of neuroscience and AI deepens understanding of the human factor in military affairs and establishes the scientific architecture for next-generation operational readiness and operational superiority.
“The convergence of neuroscience and AI thus not only deepens our understanding of the human factor in military affairs, but also establishes the scientific architecture for next-generation operational readiness and operational superiority (Sekel et al., 2023).”
From Enhancement of modern defense capabilities by convergence of cognitive neuroscience and artificial intelligence (2026) · cites this paper as Sekel et al., 2023
The Introduction links cognitive readiness and resilience to warfighters’ ability to adapt in future conflicts, and the Conclusion calls for countermeasures against stress-related cognitive decline. But the paper does not support the attributed claim that a convergence of neuroscience and AI establishes a scientific architecture for next-generation readiness or operational superiority; searches for that phrasing and for artificial intelligence found no such discussion. The indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 68 · Cited by 28
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Lee J. E. C. Predicting basic training attrition. In: International Military Testing Association annual conference, Lucerne Switzerlad. (2010).
- Authors
- Sekel, N. M., Beckner, M. E., Conkright, W. R., LaGoy, A. D., Proessl, F., Lovalekar, M., Martin, B. J., Jabloner, L. R., Beck, A. L., Eagle, S. R., Dretsch, M., Roma, P. G., Ferrarelli, F., Germain, A., Flanagan, S. D., Connaboy, C., Haufler, A. J., & Nindl, B. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- United States Army (US)
- Naval Health Research Center (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sekel, Nicole M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2023-02-08
- Volume
- 14
- Pages
- 1102425-1102425
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9944034
- OpenAlex
- W4319603167
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 68
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 13.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- DOD (#W81XWH-17-2-0070)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Performance
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
- Keywords
- adaptive decision-making, tactical decision-making, resilience, cardiorespiratory fitness, neurocognitive function, sleep deprivation, caloric restriction, spears, military personnel, cognitive readiness
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
