ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Consumer-Grade Wearable Sensors for Classifying Pilot Workload and Stress During Real Flight Training: A Leave-One-Subject-Out Validation Study.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From signal to construct evidence: multimodal consumer-wearable sensing in real general-aviation flight.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Consumer-grade wearable sensors may enable continuous monitoring of pilot workload and stress during flight training, yet most prior studies rely on simulators, raw-score labelling, and within-subject validation, limiting generalisability. This study evaluates whether electrodermal activity (EDA), electrocardiogram (ECG)-derived features, and wrist skin temperature, recorded from an Empatica Embrace Plus and a Polar H10 during real Cessna 172 flight training, can classify pilots' task-relative workload and stress deviations. Thirty-five pilots completed four flight segments and rated workload and stress after each. Fold-safe two-way residual binary labels removed inter-pilot scale-use differences and task-level effects, and five classifiers were evaluated under leave-one-subject-out (LOSO) cross-validation with Benjamini-Hochberg FDR correction. Under LOSO, a Linear SVC on combined features classified stress (macro F1 = 0.607) and XGBoost on EDA classified workload (macro F1 = 0.598) significantly above chance (padj=0.033); both remained stable under nested cross-validation with an inner hyperparameter search (nested 0.606 and 0.561). A LightGBM model on EDA gave a numerically higher stress score (0.611) that did not survive nested validation. Subject-dependent within-subject validation produced higher apparent performance (macro F1 = 0.853 for stress and 0.791 for workload), but a stricter within-pilot analysis was unstable. These contrasts indicate that personalised classification may be feasible after calibration, whereas uncalibrated cross-pilot prediction in real flight remains modest, with post-flight debriefing the most plausible near-term application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.