pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.09014 · v3 · submitted 2025-12-09 · 💻 cs.HC

Prototyping and Evaluating a Real-time Neuro-Adaptive Virtual Reality Flight Training System

Evy van Weelden , Jos M. Prinsen , Caterina Ceccato , Ethel Pruss , Anita Vrins , Maryam Alimardani , Travis J. Wiltshire , Max M. Louwerse This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 23:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords neuro-adaptive trainingEEGbrain-computer interfacevirtual realityflight simulatorworkload estimationpilot trainingadaptive difficulty
0
0 comments X

The pith

A neuro-adaptive VR flight trainer using real-time EEG workload estimates produces no performance gains over fixed difficulty sequences yet pilots prefer its personalization.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests whether a brain-computer interface can adjust VR flight simulation difficulty on the fly by reading pilot workload from EEG signals. It compares this adaptive system against a traditional fixed sequence of increasing difficulty in a group of military student pilots. Objective flight performance and subjective reports of engagement, workload, and simulator sickness show no differences between the two approaches. Interviews reveal that pilots favor the adaptive version for its varied pacing once they understand how it works. The core argument is that even without immediate performance benefits, such systems could deliver more individualized training experiences.

Core claim

A pre-trained EEG classifier driving real-time difficulty adjustments in a VR flight simulator yields no statistically significant improvements in flight performance, self-reported workload, engagement, or simulator sickness compared with a fixed progressive sequence, yet semi-structured interviews show pilots prefer the neuro-adaptive system for its perceived personalization and variety after briefing.

What carries the argument

Pre-trained EEG-based BCI that estimates cognitive workload in real time and triggers automatic changes in VR flight task difficulty.

If this is right

  • Flight performance declines with rising subjective workload in both adaptive and fixed conditions.
  • Individual pilots differ in how they perceive the timing and size of difficulty changes.
  • Briefing pilots on the adaptive logic increases acceptance of the system.
  • The workload-performance relationship remains consistent regardless of whether difficulty is adjusted automatically or by script.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Future versions could combine EEG workload signals with other sensors such as eye-tracking or heart-rate variability to improve adjustment accuracy.
  • The same adaptive logic might be tested for transfer to actual aircraft or other high-stakes training domains like surgery or air-traffic control.
  • Longer training sessions or repeated exposure could reveal whether the preference for adaptive pacing eventually translates into measurable skill retention.

Load-bearing premise

The pre-trained EEG classifier supplies accurate enough real-time workload readings to produce useful difficulty adjustments in the simulator.

What would settle it

An experiment in which the EEG-driven adjustments repeatedly mismatch the pilot's actual workload, producing either excessive or insufficient challenge levels that can be measured by independent physiological or performance markers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.09014 by Anita Vrins, Caterina Ceccato, Ethel Pruss, Evy van Weelden, Jos M. Prinsen, Maryam Alimardani, Max M. Louwerse, Travis J. Wiltshire.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic pipeline of the neuro-adaptive flight training system. This pipeline was run in Python and connected to the simulator via an ethernet cable. The loop would stop after five iterations. GUI = graphical user interface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The five levels of difficulty employed in the current study. Level 1: clear weather and outside visuals, Level 2: misty outside visuals, Level 3: heavy fog resulting in no outside visuals, Level 4: misty outside visuals and failure of artificial horizons within cockpit instruments, Level 5: heavy fog with false horizon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Experimental design. All subjects performed one task in the Adaptive condition, and another task in the Fixed-order condition. The order of the two tasks and the two conditions was counterbalanced. QRS = questionnaires [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Experimental set-up in mock-pit with head-mounted display, cockpit instruments, headphones and EEG cap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Subjective scores for workload (A and B), simulator sickness (C and D) and user engagement (E and F) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Boxplots of flight performance per condition (A) and task (B). * indicates a statistically significant difference of p < .001 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scatter plot of flight performance (deviations from target parameters) and subjective workload. Dashed lines display the correlations per condition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Scatter plot of flight performance (deviations from target parameters) and subjective fatigue. Dashed lines display the correlations per condition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Real-time adjustments to task difficulty during flight training are crucial for optimizing performance and managing pilot workload. This study evaluated the functionality of a pre-trained brain-computer interface (BCI) that adapts training difficulty based on real-time estimations of workload from brain signals. Specifically, an EEG-based neuro-adaptive training system was developed and tested in Virtual Reality (VR) flight simulations with military student pilots. The neuro-adaptive system was compared to a fixed sequence that progressively increased in difficulty, in terms of self-reported user engagement, workload, and simulator sickness (subjective measures), as well as flight performance (objective metric). Additionally, we explored the relationships between subjective workload and flight performance in the VR simulator for each condition. The experiments concluded with semi-structured interviews to elicit the pilots' experience with the neuro-adaptive prototype. Results revealed no significant differences between the adaptive and fixed sequence conditions in subjective measures or flight performance. In both conditions, flight performance decreased as subjective workload increased. The semi-structured interviews indicated that, upon briefing, the pilots preferred the neuro-adaptive VR training system over the system with a fixed sequence, although individual differences were observed in the perception of difficulty and the order of changes in difficulty. Even though this study shows performance does not change, BCI-based flight training systems hold the potential to provide a more personalized and varied training experience.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports on the prototyping and evaluation of a real-time neuro-adaptive VR flight training system using a pre-trained EEG BCI to estimate workload and dynamically adjust task difficulty. In an experiment with military student pilots, the adaptive condition was compared to a fixed progressive difficulty sequence on subjective measures (engagement, workload, simulator sickness) and objective flight performance. No significant differences were found between conditions, with performance declining as workload increased in both; semi-structured interviews indicated a preference for the adaptive system, leading to the conclusion that BCI-based training holds potential for more personalized experiences despite unchanged performance.

Significance. If the adaptive mechanism is shown to function reliably, this work could advance HCI applications in high-stakes training by demonstrating BCI-VR integration for real-time personalization in aviation. The use of actual military pilots and mixed objective/subjective measures provides ecological validity and user-centered insights. The null quantitative results underscore practical challenges in BCI deployment, while the prototype and interview data offer a useful foundation for iterative design in neuro-adaptive simulators.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results] Results section: No metrics are reported on the pre-trained EEG classifier's real-time accuracy, F1-score, or workload state detection performance during the VR sessions (e.g., no confusion matrix or comparison against expected adjustments). This is load-bearing for the central claim, because without evidence that difficulty changes were actually triggered by BCI estimates, the adaptive condition reduces to an uncontrolled sequence and the null result on performance and subjective measures cannot inform BCI efficacy or support the personalization potential assertion.
  2. [Methods and Results] Methods and Results sections: Details are missing on how the pre-trained classifier's workload estimates were mapped to specific difficulty levels in the VR simulator and whether any post-hoc verification confirmed that adaptations occurred as intended. This undermines interpretation of the null findings and the interview-based preference data, as individual differences in perceived difficulty may reflect non-adaptive behavior rather than successful neuro-adaptation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results] The manuscript would benefit from explicit reporting of the exact statistical tests, effect sizes, and p-values (including any corrections) used for the between-condition comparisons to improve transparency and allow assessment of the null result's robustness.
  2. Figure captions and the description of the flight performance metric could be expanded with precise definitions (e.g., what constitutes a successful landing or error count) to aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback highlighting the need for stronger validation of the BCI component. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results section: No metrics are reported on the pre-trained EEG classifier's real-time accuracy, F1-score, or workload state detection performance during the VR sessions (e.g., no confusion matrix or comparison against expected adjustments). This is load-bearing for the central claim, because without evidence that difficulty changes were actually triggered by BCI estimates, the adaptive condition reduces to an uncontrolled sequence and the null result on performance and subjective measures cannot inform BCI efficacy or support the personalization potential assertion.

    Authors: We acknowledge that real-time accuracy metrics for the classifier during the VR sessions are not reported. The classifier was pre-trained and validated offline in prior work, but concurrent ground-truth workload labels were not collected during the live sessions to avoid interrupting training. We will revise the manuscript to include the available offline validation metrics, explicitly discuss this as a limitation, and moderate the conclusions regarding personalization potential to rely only on the interview data rather than assuming verified real-time adaptation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Methods and Results] Methods and Results sections: Details are missing on how the pre-trained classifier's workload estimates were mapped to specific difficulty levels in the VR simulator and whether any post-hoc verification confirmed that adaptations occurred as intended. This undermines interpretation of the null findings and the interview-based preference data, as individual differences in perceived difficulty may reflect non-adaptive behavior rather than successful neuro-adaptation.

    Authors: We will expand the Methods section with the precise mapping rules (including thresholds and logic) used to translate workload estimates into VR difficulty adjustments. We will also add post-hoc analysis of system logs in the Results to document the actual adaptations that occurred. This will allow readers to assess whether the system behaved as designed. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Real-time accuracy, F1-score, or confusion matrix for the EEG classifier during the VR sessions, as no concurrent ground-truth workload labels were collected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical user study with independent experimental comparisons

full rationale

The paper reports results from a controlled user study with military pilots comparing a neuro-adaptive VR condition (driven by a pre-trained EEG classifier) against a fixed-difficulty sequence. No equations, parameter fitting, or derivations are present. Claims rest on direct measurements of performance, workload, engagement, and interview data, with statistical tests applied to observed outcomes. The pre-trained classifier is treated as an external input whose live accuracy is not validated in the reported results, but this constitutes an evidence gap rather than a circular reduction. No self-citation chain, self-definition, or renaming of known results occurs. The central finding (no significant differences) and the forward-looking claim about personalization potential are therefore not forced by the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The study is empirical and relies on standard assumptions that EEG signals can index workload and that VR flight performance is a valid proxy for training outcomes; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption EEG signals provide a reliable real-time proxy for cognitive workload during flight tasks
    Invoked when the pre-trained BCI is used to adapt difficulty without additional validation in the reported experiment.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5573 in / 1293 out tokens · 52861 ms · 2026-05-16T23:29:07.204022+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Passive BCI in operational environments: insights, recent advances, and future trends,

    P. Aricò, G. Borghini, G. Di Flumeri, N. Sciaraffa, A. Colosimo and F. Babiloni, “Passive BCI in operational environments: insights, recent advances, and future trends,” IEEE Trans. Biom. Eng., vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 1431-1436, July 2017, doi: 10.1109/TBME.2017.2694856

    work page doi:10.1109/tbme.2017.2694856 2017

  2. [2]

    Brain-Computer Interface contributions to neuroergonomics,

    F. Lotte and R. Roy, “Brain-Computer Interface contributions to neuroergonomics,” Neuroergonomics: the brain at work and in everyday life, Elsevier, pp. 43-48, 2019, URL: https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01946095

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Advancing the Adoption of Virtual Reality and Neurotechnology to Improve Flight Training,

    E. van Weelden, M. Alimardani, T. J. Wiltshire and M. M. Louwerse, “Advancing the Adoption of Virtual Reality and Neurotechnology to Improve Flight Training,” in 2nd IEEE Int. Conf. on Hum. Mach. Syst., Sep., 2021, doi: 10.1109/ICHMS53169.2021.9582658

    work page doi:10.1109/ichms53169.2021.9582658 2021

  4. [4]

    Skill transfer from virtual reality to a real laparoscopic task,

    J. Torkington, S. G. T. Smith, B. I. Rees and A. Darzi, “Skill transfer from virtual reality to a real laparoscopic task,” Surg. Endosc., vol. 15, pp. 1076-1079, August 2001, doi: 10.1007/s004640000233

    work page doi:10.1007/s004640000233 2001

  5. [5]

    Rethinking maritime education, training, and operations in the Digital Era: Applications for emerging immersive technologies,

    S. C. Mallam, S. Nazir and S. K. Renganayagalu, “Rethinking maritime education, training, and operations in the Digital Era: Applications for emerging immersive technologies,” J. Mar. Sci. Eng., vol. 7, pp. 428:1-9, November 2019, doi: 10.3390/jmse7120428

    work page doi:10.3390/jmse7120428 2019

  6. [6]

    Examining enhanced learning diagnostics in virtual reality flight trainers,

    G. McGowin, Z. Xi, O. B. Newton, G. Sukthankar, S. M. Fiore and K. Oden, “Examining enhanced learning diagnostics in virtual reality flight trainers,” in 2020 Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 1476-1480, December 2020, doi: 10.1177/1071181320641351

    work page doi:10.1177/1071181320641351 2020

  7. [7]

    What’s real about virtual reality flight simulation?

    M. Oberhauser, D. Dreyer, R. Braunstingl and I. Koglbauer, “What’s real about virtual reality flight simulation?” APAHF, vol. 8, pp. 22-34, March 2018, doi: 10.1027/2192-0923/a000134

    work page doi:10.1027/2192-0923/a000134 2018

  8. [8]

    Scalable Funding of Bitcoin Micropayment Channel Networks

    F. Dehais, B. Somon, T. Mullen and D. E. Callan, “A neuroergonomics approach to measure pilot’s cognitive incapacitation in the real world with EEG,” in AHFE 2020, pp. 111-117, 2021, doi: 10.1007/978-3- 030- 51041-1_16

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3- 2020

  9. [10]

    Using machine learning methods and EEG to discriminate aircraft pilot cognitive workload during flight,

    H. Taheri Gorji et al., “Using machine learning methods and EEG to discriminate aircraft pilot cognitive workload during flight,” Sci. Rep., vol. 13, pp. 2507, 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-29647-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-023-29647-0 2023

  10. [11]

    A passive electroencephalography brain-computer interface predicts mental workload during flight simulation,

    A. Fraser, K. van Benthem, & C. M. Herdman, “A passive electroencephalography brain-computer interface predicts mental workload during flight simulation,” in Int. Sym. Av. Psych., 2021, URL: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/isap_2021/73

    work page 2021

  11. [12]

    Exploration of an EEG-Based Cognitively Adaptive Training System in Virtual Reality,

    A. Dey, A. Chatburn and M. Billinghurst, “Exploration of an EEG-Based Cognitively Adaptive Training System in Virtual Reality,” in 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces, Osaka, Japan, pp. 220-226, March 2019, doi: 10.1109/VR.2019.8797840

    work page doi:10.1109/vr.2019.8797840 2019

  12. [13]

    Analysis of Brain-Heart Interactions in newborns with and without seizures using the Convergent Cross Mapping approach,

    G. Borghini et al., “Real-time Pilot Crew’s Mental Workload and Arousal Assessment During Simulated Flights for Training Evaluation: a Case Study,” in Proc. 44th Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. (EMBC), Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom, pp. 3568-3571, July 2022, doi: 10.1109/EMBC48229.2022.9871893

    work page doi:10.1109/embc48229.2022.9871893 2022

  13. [14]

    Real- Time State Estimation in a Flight Simulator Using fNIRS,

    T. Gateau, G. Durantin, F. Lancelot, S. Scannella and F. Dehais, “Real- Time State Estimation in a Flight Simulator Using fNIRS,” PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 3, 2015, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121279

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121279 2015

  14. [15]

    Aviation and Neurophysiology: a Systematic Review,

    E. van Weelden, M. Alimardani, T. J. Wiltshire and M. M. Louwerse, “Aviation and Neurophysiology: a Systematic Review,” Appl. Ergon., vol. 105, no. 1, Nov. 2022, Art. no. 103838, doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103838

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103838 2022

  15. [16]

    Measuring neurophysiological signals in aircraft pilots and car drivers for the assessment of mental workload, fatigue and drowsiness,

    G. Borghini, L. Astolfi, G. Vecchiato, D. Mattia and F. Babiloni, “Measuring neurophysiological signals in aircraft pilots and car drivers for the assessment of mental workload, fatigue and drowsiness,” Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 58-75, July 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.10.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.10.003 2014

  16. [17]

    Brain biomarkers based assessment of cognitive workload in pilots under various task demands,

    R. J. Gentili et al., “Brain biomarkers based assessment of cognitive workload in pilots under various task demands,” In 2014 Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. (EMBC), pp. 5860-5863, August 2014, doi: 10.1109/EMBC.2014.6944961

    work page doi:10.1109/embc.2014.6944961 2014

  17. [18]

    A review of important cognitive concepts in aviation,

    A. P. G. Martins, “A review of important cognitive concepts in aviation,” Aviat., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 65-84, 2016, doi: 10.3846/16487788.2016.1196559

    work page doi:10.3846/16487788.2016.1196559 2016

  18. [19]

    The Relationship between Workload and Training: An Introduction,

    S. G. Hart, “The Relationship between Workload and Training: An Introduction,” in 1986 Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc., vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 1116-1120, Sage, CA: Los Angeles, Sep. 1986, doi: 10.1177/154193128603001118

    work page doi:10.1177/154193128603001118 1986

  19. [20]

    Neuroadaptive training via fNIRS in flight simulators,

    J. A. Mark, A. E. Kraft, M. D. Ziegler and H. Ayaz, "Neuroadaptive training via fNIRS in flight simulators," Front. Neuroergon., vol. 3, Article 820523, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fnrgo.2022.820523

    work page doi:10.3389/fnrgo.2022.820523 2022

  20. [21]

    Using neurophysiological signals that reflect cognitive or affective state: six recommendations to avoid common pitfalls,

    A-M. Brouwer, T. O. Zander, J. B. F. van Erp, J. E. Korteling and A. W. Bronkhorst, “Using neurophysiological signals that reflect cognitive or affective state: six recommendations to avoid common pitfalls,” Front. Neurosci., vol. 9, no. 136, April 2015, doi: 10.3389/fnins.2015.00136

    work page doi:10.3389/fnins.2015.00136 2015

  21. [22]

    A review of classification algorithms for EEG-based brain–computer interfaces: a 10 year update,

    F. Lotte et al., “A review of classification algorithms for EEG-based brain–computer interfaces: a 10 year update,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 031005, 2018, doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/aab2f2

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-2552/aab2f2 2018

  22. [23]

    Transfer Learning for EEG-Based Brain- Computer Interfaces: A Review of Progress Made Since 2016,

    D. Wu, Y. Xu and B-L. Lu, “Transfer Learning for EEG-Based Brain- Computer Interfaces: A Review of Progress Made Since 2016,” in IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 4-19, March 2022, doi: 10.1109/TCDS.2020.3007453

    work page doi:10.1109/tcds.2020.3007453 2016

  23. [24]

    Application of Transfer Learning in EEG Decoding Based on Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Review,

    K. Zhang et al., “Application of Transfer Learning in EEG Decoding Based on Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Review,” Sensors, vol. 20, no. 21, pp. 6321, 2020, doi: 10.3390/s20216321

    work page doi:10.3390/s20216321 2020

  24. [25]

    A Passive Brain-Computer Interface for Predicting Pilot Workload in Virtual Reality Flight Training,

    E. van Weelden et al., “A Passive Brain-Computer Interface for Predicting Pilot Workload in Virtual Reality Flight Training,” in Proc. IEEE 4th Int. Conf. Human-Machine Syst. (ICHMS), Toronto, ON, Canada, 2024, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ICHMS59971.2024.10555679

    work page doi:10.1109/ichms59971.2024.10555679 2024

  25. [26]

    A closed-loop system for examining psychophysiological measures for adaptive task allocation,

    L. J. Prinzel, F. G. Freeman, M. W. Scerbo, O. J. Mikulka and A. T. Pope, “A closed-loop system for examining psychophysiological measures for adaptive task allocation,” Int. J. Aviat. Psychol., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 393- 410, 2000, doi: 10.1207/S15327108IJAP10046

    work page doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap10046 2000

  26. [27]

    MEG and EEG data analysis with MNE -Python,

    A. Gramfort, M. Luessi, E. Larson, D. A. Engemann, D. Strohmeier, C. Brodbeck, …, and M. S. Hämäläinen. MEG and EEG data analysis with MNE-Python. Front. Neurosci., vol. 7, no. 267, pp. 1–13, 2013, doi:10.3389/fnins.2013.00267

    work page doi:10.3389/fnins.2013.00267 2013

  27. [28]

    Spatial Disorientation Influences on Pilots’ Visual Scanning and Flight Performance,

    W. D. Ledegang and E. L. Groen, “Spatial Disorientation Influences on Pilots’ Visual Scanning and Flight Performance,” Aerosp. Med. Hum. Perform., vol. 89, no. 10, pp. 873-882, 2018, doi: 10.3357/AMHP.5109.2018

    work page doi:10.3357/amhp.5109.2018 2018

  28. [29]

    Hart and Lowell E

    S. G. Hart and L. E. Staveland, “Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Resultsnum of empirical and theoretical research.” In P. A. Hancock and N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload, Amsterdam: North Holland Press, 1998, doi: 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9 1998

  29. [30]

    Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness,

    R. S. Kennedy, N. E. Lane, K. S. Berbaum and M. G. Lilienthal, “Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness,” Int. J. Aviat. Psychol., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 203-220, 1993, doi: 10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3

    work page doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3 1993

  30. [31]

    A practical approach to measuring user engagement with the refined user engagement scale (UES) and new UES short form,

    H. L. O’Brien, P. Cairns and M. Hall, “A practical approach to measuring user engagement with the refined user engagement scale (UES) and new UES short form,” Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., vol. 112, pp. 28-39, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.01.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.01.004 2018

  31. [32]

    An experimental report on rating scale descriptor sets for the Instantaneous Self-Assessment (ISA) recorder,

    S. D. Brennan, "An experimental report on rating scale descriptor sets for the Instantaneous Self-Assessment (ISA) recorder," DRA Tech. Memo. (CAD5) 92017, DRA Maritime Command and Control Div., Portsmouth, U.K., 1992. XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X/XX/$XX.00 ©20XX IEEE

    work page 1992

  32. [33]

    Experimental Study of the Effect of an Instantaneous Self Assessment Workload Recorder on Task Performance,

    C. Jordan, “Experimental Study of the Effect of an Instantaneous Self Assessment Workload Recorder on Task Performance,” Technical Report DRA Technical Memorandum Memorandum (CAD5) 92011, DRA Maritime Command Control Division, 1992

    work page 1992

  33. [34]

    Fatigue Instantaneous Self- Assessment (F-ISA): Development of a short mental fatigue rating,

    A. Hamann and N. Carstengerdes, “Fatigue Instantaneous Self- Assessment (F-ISA): Development of a short mental fatigue rating,” DLR internal report, 2020, url: https://elib.dlr.de/135577/

    work page 2020

  34. [35]

    MATLAB and Signal Processing Toolbox Release R2023b, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, USA, 2023

    work page 2023

  35. [36]

    RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R

    RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA, 2023, URL: http://www.rstudio.com/

    work page 2023

  36. [37]

    R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing,

    R Core Team, “R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing,” R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria,

    work page

  37. [38]

    https://www.R-project.org/

    work page

  38. [39]

    Comparing Presence, Workload, and Performance in Desktop and Virtual Reality Flight Simulations,

    E. van Weelden, T. J. Wiltshire, M. Alimardani and M. M. Louwerse, “Comparing Presence, Workload, and Performance in Desktop and Virtual Reality Flight Simulations,” Proc. 2022 HFES 66th Int. Annu. Meet., vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 2006–2010, 2022, doi: 10.1177/1071181322661096

    work page doi:10.1177/1071181322661096 2022

  39. [40]

    Correlational analysis of ordinal data: from Pearson’s r to Bayesian polychoric correlation,

    J. Choi, M. Peters and R. O. Mueller, “Correlational analysis of ordinal data: from Pearson’s r to Bayesian polychoric correlation,” Asia Pacific Educ. Rev., vol. 11, pp. 459–466, 2010, doi: 10.1007/s12564-010-9096-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s12564-010-9096-y 2010

  40. [41]

    Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and Interpretation,

    P. Schober, C. Boer and L. A. Schwarte, “Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and Interpretation,” Anesth Analg, vol. 126, no. 5, pp. 1763-1768, 2018, doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864

    work page doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000002864 2018

  41. [42]

    Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing , volume =

    Y. Benjamini and Y. Hochberg, “Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing,” J. R. Stat. Soc.: series B (Methodological), vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 289-300, 1995, doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x 1995

  42. [43]

    Prototyping and Evaluating a Real-time Neuro-Adaptive Virtual Reality Flight Training System

    E. van Weelden, J. M. Prinsen, C. Ceccato, E. Pruss, A. Vrins, M. Alimardani, T. J. Wiltshire and M. M. Louwerse, “Prototyping and Evaluating a Real-time Neuro-Adaptive Virtual Reality Flight Training System: Supplementary Materials,” arXiv, vol. 2512, 2025, doi: arXiv.2512.09014

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [44]

    Exploring the impact of virtual reality flight simulations on EEG neural patterns and task performance,

    E. van Weelden, T. J. Wiltshire, M. Alimardani and M. M. Louwerse, “Exploring the impact of virtual reality flight simulations on EEG neural patterns and task performance,” Cogn. Syst. Res., vol. 88, pp. 101282, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2024.101282

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2024.101282 2024

  44. [45]

    Correlation between physiological and performance-based metrics to estimate pilots’ cognitive workload,

    P. A. Hebbar, K. Bhattacharya, G. Prabhakar and P. Biswas, “Correlation between physiological and performance-based metrics to estimate pilots’ cognitive workload,” Front. Psychol., vol. 12, April 2021, Art. no. 555446, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.5554

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.5554 2021

  45. [46]

    Toward a subject-independent EEG-based neural indicator of task proficiency during training,

    B. Kenny and S. D. Power, “Toward a subject-independent EEG-based neural indicator of task proficiency during training,” Front. Neuroergon., vol. 1, no. 618632, 2021, doi: 10.3389/fnrgo.2020.618632

    work page doi:10.3389/fnrgo.2020.618632 2021

  46. [47]

    Decoding the debate: a comparative study of brain-computer interface and neurofeedback

    M. H. Mahrooz, F. Fattahzadeh and S. Gharibzadeh, “Decoding the debate: a comparative study of brain-computer interface and neurofeedback.” Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback, vol. 49, no. 1, 47-53, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10484-023-09601-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10484-023-09601-6 2024

  47. [48]

    Can We Predict Who Will Respond to Neurofeedback? A Review of the Inefficacy Problem and Existing Predictors for Successful EEG Neurofeedback Learning,

    O. Alkoby, A. Abu-Rmileh, O. Shriki and D. Todder, “Can We Predict Who Will Respond to Neurofeedback? A Review of the Inefficacy Problem and Existing Predictors for Successful EEG Neurofeedback Learning,” Neurosci., vol. 378, pp. 155–164, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.12.050

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.12.050 2018

  48. [49]

    Multiple resources and mental workload,

    C. D. Wickens, “Multiple resources and mental workload,” Human factors, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 449-455, 2008, doi: 10.1518/001872008X288394

    work page doi:10.1518/001872008x288394 2008

  49. [50]

    The influence assessment of artifact subspace reconstruction on the EEG signal characteristics,

    M. Plechawska-Wójcik, P. Augustynowicz, M. Kaczorowska, E. Zabielska-Mendyk and D. Zapała, “The influence assessment of artifact subspace reconstruction on the EEG signal characteristics,” Appl. Sci., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1605, 2023, doi: 10.3390/ app13031605

    work page 2023

  50. [51]

    EEG-based multiclass workload identification using feature fusion and selection,

    Z. Pei, H. Wang, A. Bezerianos and J. Li, “EEG-based multiclass workload identification using feature fusion and selection,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 70, pp. 1-8, 2020, Art no. 4001108, doi: 10.1109/TIM.2020.3019849. Supplementary Materials Table I. Difficulty level and workload classification per trial within the Fixed-order condition. Subject Tr...

    work page doi:10.1109/tim.2020.3019849 2020