研究飞行时间、认知反思、工作量、压力和元认知对模拟飞行中飞行员决策能力的影响。

IF 2 3区 工程技术 Q3 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL Ergonomics Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI:10.1080/00140139.2024.2404642
Aoife Mohan, Boban Simonovic, Katia C Vione, Edward Stupple
{"title":"研究飞行时间、认知反思、工作量、压力和元认知对模拟飞行中飞行员决策能力的影响。","authors":"Aoife Mohan, Boban Simonovic, Katia C Vione, Edward Stupple","doi":"10.1080/00140139.2024.2404642","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite technological advancements, human decision errors still contribute to civil aviation accidents. This study investigated whether flight time, cognitive reflection, task-load, metacognition, and perceived stress predicted decision-making (DM) performance during two in-flight training simulations with 104 commercial pilots at Bogota International Airport. Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that the predictors accounted for 56% of the variance. Cognitive reflection, flight time and performance task load emerged as significant positive predictors. Cognitive reflection significantly moderated the relationship between flight time and DM performance, with pilots scoring lower on cognitive reflection showing improved DM with increased flight time, while controlling for performance task load. The study did not find significant relationships between stress metacognition and DM performance. The study emphasises the significance of advanced training methods in improving pilots' DM, especially for those with low cognitive reflection. Future research should expand to multiple airlines, address gender balance, and incorporate direct measures of metacognitive monitoring.</p>","PeriodicalId":50503,"journal":{"name":"Ergonomics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining flight time, cognitive reflection, workload, stress and metacognition on decision making performance for pilots during flight simulation.\",\"authors\":\"Aoife Mohan, Boban Simonovic, Katia C Vione, Edward Stupple\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00140139.2024.2404642\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Despite technological advancements, human decision errors still contribute to civil aviation accidents. This study investigated whether flight time, cognitive reflection, task-load, metacognition, and perceived stress predicted decision-making (DM) performance during two in-flight training simulations with 104 commercial pilots at Bogota International Airport. Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that the predictors accounted for 56% of the variance. Cognitive reflection, flight time and performance task load emerged as significant positive predictors. Cognitive reflection significantly moderated the relationship between flight time and DM performance, with pilots scoring lower on cognitive reflection showing improved DM with increased flight time, while controlling for performance task load. The study did not find significant relationships between stress metacognition and DM performance. The study emphasises the significance of advanced training methods in improving pilots' DM, especially for those with low cognitive reflection. Future research should expand to multiple airlines, address gender balance, and incorporate direct measures of metacognitive monitoring.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50503,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ergonomics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ergonomics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2024.2404642\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ergonomics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2024.2404642","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管技术不断进步,但人为决策失误仍是造成民航事故的原因之一。本研究调查了飞行时间、认知反思、任务负荷、元认知和感知压力是否能预测波哥大国际机场 104 名商业飞行员在两次飞行模拟训练中的决策(DM)表现。层次回归分析表明,这些预测因素占方差的 56%。认知反思、飞行时间和飞行任务负荷是显著的正向预测因素。认知反思在很大程度上调节了飞行时间与管理绩效之间的关系,在控制绩效任务负荷的情况下,随着飞行时间的增加,认知反思得分较低的飞行员的管理绩效会有所提高。研究没有发现压力元认知与 DM 表现之间有明显关系。这项研究强调了先进的培训方法对于提高飞行员的DM,尤其是认知反思能力较低的飞行员的DM具有重要意义。未来的研究应扩展到多家航空公司,解决性别平衡问题,并纳入元认知监测的直接测量方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Examining flight time, cognitive reflection, workload, stress and metacognition on decision making performance for pilots during flight simulation.

Despite technological advancements, human decision errors still contribute to civil aviation accidents. This study investigated whether flight time, cognitive reflection, task-load, metacognition, and perceived stress predicted decision-making (DM) performance during two in-flight training simulations with 104 commercial pilots at Bogota International Airport. Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that the predictors accounted for 56% of the variance. Cognitive reflection, flight time and performance task load emerged as significant positive predictors. Cognitive reflection significantly moderated the relationship between flight time and DM performance, with pilots scoring lower on cognitive reflection showing improved DM with increased flight time, while controlling for performance task load. The study did not find significant relationships between stress metacognition and DM performance. The study emphasises the significance of advanced training methods in improving pilots' DM, especially for those with low cognitive reflection. Future research should expand to multiple airlines, address gender balance, and incorporate direct measures of metacognitive monitoring.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ergonomics
Ergonomics 工程技术-工程:工业
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
147
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Ergonomics, also known as human factors, is the scientific discipline that seeks to understand and improve human interactions with products, equipment, environments and systems. Drawing upon human biology, psychology, engineering and design, Ergonomics aims to develop and apply knowledge and techniques to optimise system performance, whilst protecting the health, safety and well-being of individuals involved. The attention of ergonomics extends across work, leisure and other aspects of our daily lives. The journal Ergonomics is an international refereed publication, with a 60 year tradition of disseminating high quality research. Original submissions, both theoretical and applied, are invited from across the subject, including physical, cognitive, organisational and environmental ergonomics. Papers reporting the findings of research from cognate disciplines are also welcome, where these contribute to understanding equipment, tasks, jobs, systems and environments and the corresponding needs, abilities and limitations of people. All published research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymous refereeing by independent expert referees.
期刊最新文献
The effect of font boldness, noise disturbance and time pressure on human error in the context of cloud change operation. How flight experience impacts pilots' decision-making and visual scanning pattern in low-visibility approaches: preliminary evidence from eye tracking. The comfort and functional performance of personal protective equipment for police officers: a systematic scoping review. Virtual fit and design improvements of a filtering half-mask for sub-adult wearers. The impact of remote work using mobile information and communication technologies on physical health: a systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1