4.5 Review

Measuring mental workload using physiological measures: A systematic review

期刊

APPLIED ERGONOMICS
卷 74, 期 -, 页码 221-232

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2018.08.028

关键词

Mental workload; Taskload; Physiological measures; Systematic review

资金

  1. European Union [640597]
  2. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [640597] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Technological advances have led to physiological measurement being increasingly used to measure and predict operator states. Mental workload (MWL) in particular has been characterised using a variety of physiological sensor data. This systematic review contributes a synthesis of the literature summarising key findings to assist practitioners to select measures for use in evaluation of MWL. We also describe limitations of the methods to assist selection when being deployed in applied or laboratory settings. We detail fifty-eight peer reviewed journal articles which present original data using physiological measures to include electrocardiographic, respiratory, dermal, blood pressure and ocular. Electroencephalographic measures have been included if they are presented with another measure to constrain scope. The literature reviewed covers a range of applied and experimental studies across various domains, safety-critical applications being highly represented in the sample of applied literature reviewed. We present a summary of the six measures and provide an evidence base which includes how to deploy each measure, and characteristics that can affect or preclude the use of a measure in research. Measures can be used to discriminate differences in MWL caused by task type, task load, and in some cases task difficulty. Varying ranges of sensitivity to sudden or gradual changes in taskload are also evident across the six measures. We conclude that there is no single measure that clearly discriminates mental workload but there is a growing empirical basis with which to inform both science and practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据