OpenMATB

Build a Scenario

Scenarios are plain-text scripts that orchestrate tasks, events, and parameters across an entire experimental session.

Scenario Tools

OpenMATB includes two scenario generation helpers:

• scenario_generator.py — command-line scenario generator for progressive difficulty
• scenario_generator_ui.py — graphical interface for scenario creation

Scenario validation errors are written to last_scenario_errors.log in the root directory.

Syntax

Each line follows a three- or four-component format separated by semicolons:

time;plugin;command
time;plugin;parameter;value

• Time — H:mm:ss relative to experiment start
• Plugin — target module alias
• Command — action keyword or parameter path
• Value — parameter value (when setting a parameter)

Comments begin with # and are ignored by the parser. Commands are automatically sorted by execution time.

Available Plugins

Actions

Parameter Hierarchy

Parameters use a dash-separated hierarchy to target nested elements:

0:00:10;sysmon;scales-1-failure;True
0:00:10;sysmon;alerttimeout;2000
0:00:00;resman;tank-b-target;1000
0:00:00;resman;pump-3-state;failure

For example, scales-1-failure targets the failure property of scale number 1 within the sysmon plugin.

Full Example — 1 Minute Scenario

# Scenario template

# 1. Task parameters
0:00:00;sysmon;feedbacks-positive-active;False
0:00:00;sysmon;feedbacks-negative-active;False
0:00:00;resman;tank-b-target;1000
0:00:00;track;cursorcolor;#009900
0:00:00;communications;callsignregex;[A-Z][A-Z]\d\d
0:00:00;communications;othercallsignnumber;5
0:00:00;communications;voicegender;male
0:00:00;communications;voiceidiom;french

# 2. Start tasks
0:00:00;resman;start
0:00:00;track;start
0:00:00;sysmon;start
0:00:00;scheduling;start
0:00:00;communications;start

# 3. Events
# 3.a. System monitoring
0:00:10;sysmon;scales-1-side;-1
0:00:10;sysmon;scales-1-failure;True
0:00:30;sysmon;scales-4-side;1
0:00:30;sysmon;scales-4-failure;True

# 3.b. Resources management
0:00:00;resman;automaticsolver;True
0:00:15;resman;pump-3-state;failure
0:00:25;resman;pump-3-state;off
0:00:25;resman;automaticsolver;False
0:00:30;resman;pump-7-state;failure
0:00:40;resman;pump-7-state;off

# 3.c. Tracking
0:00:20;track;automaticsolver;True
0:00:40;track;automaticsolver;False

# 3.d. Communications
0:00:00;communications;radioprompt;own
0:00:25;communications;radioprompt;other
0:00:40;communications;automaticsolver;True
0:00:45;communications;radioprompt;own

# 4. Stop tasks
0:01:00;resman;stop
0:01:00;track;stop
0:01:00;sysmon;stop
0:01:00;communications;stop
0:01:00;scheduling;stop

Psychophysiology Measures

Synchronize OpenMATB events with neurophysiological recordings (EEG, fNIRS, ECG…) through two complementary methods.

Physiological Measures Used with OpenMATB

The following physiological measures have been recorded alongside OpenMATB in published studies. Each card lists the measure and the studies that employed it.

For a comprehensive review of physiological measures used across 19 MATB studies (including EEG, ECG, EDA, respiration, eye tracking, EOG, fMRI, and skin temperature), see Pontiggia et al., 2024a.

Lab Streaming Layer (LSL)

# Enable full session streaming via LSL
0:00:00;labstreaminglayer;streamsession;True
0:00:00;labstreaminglayer;pauseatstart;True
0:00:00;labstreaminglayer;start

# Send a custom marker at a specific time
0:05:00;labstreaminglayer;marker;BLOCK_2_START

Parallel Port

# Start the parallel port plugin
0:00:00;parallelport;start

# Send trigger 10 at experiment start, trigger 20 at 5 minutes
0:00:00;parallelport;trigger;10
0:05:00;parallelport;trigger;20

Integration Workflow

Compatible Software

• LabRecorder — records all LSL streams into a single .xdf file
• BrainVision Recorder/Analyzer — receives parallel port triggers natively
• OpenViBE — can read LSL streams for real-time BCI applications
• MNE-Python / EEGLAB — import .xdf files for offline analysis

Tasks

OpenMATB implements five interactive components.

System Monitoring

Participants monitor 4 analog scales (F1–F4) and 2 indicator lights (F5–F6). Failures deflect a scale or toggle a light’s state. The participant must press the corresponding function key within the alerttimeout window.

• Scales: arrow drifts to one side; F1–F4 to correct
• Lights: green light turns off or red light turns on; F5/F6 to correct
• Outcomes: HIT (correct key within timeout), MISS (timeout expires), FA (false alarm — key pressed without failure)

Key Parameters

Parameter	Default	Description
alerttimeout	10000	Max failure duration (ms) before MISS
automaticsolver	False	Enable automatic failure resolution
automaticsolverdelay	1000	Delay before auto-correction (ms)
allowanykey	False	Any key resolves the first active failure
feedbackduration	1500	Duration of visual feedback (ms)
displayautomationstate	True	Show MANUAL/AUTO label
scales-N-failure	False	Trigger failure on scale N (1–4)
scales-N-side	0	Failure direction: -1 (down), 0 (random), 1 (up)
lights-N-failure	False	Trigger failure on light N (1–2)

Performance Metric

Average of the last 4 signal detections (hits/misses), mapped to 0–1.

Tracking

A cursor drifts according to a deterministic pseudo-random function. The participant uses a joystick to compensate, keeping the cursor inside a circular target zone.

• Cursor changes color when leaving the target (configurable)
• Target size adjustable via targetproportion (0–1 fraction of the reticle radius)
• Optional axis inversion for flight-stick compatibility

Key Parameters

Parameter	Default	Description
targetproportion	0.25	Target zone size (fraction of reticle radius)
cursorcolor	black	Cursor color when inside target
cursorcoloroutside	red	Cursor color when outside target
joystickforce	1	Joystick sensitivity multiplier
inverseaxis	False	Invert joystick direction (airplane mode)
automaticsolver	False	Enable auto-compensation
taskupdatetime	20	Update interval (ms)

Performance Metrics

cursor_in_target — proportion of time the cursor is inside the target over the last 5 seconds. center_deviation — average distance from center.

Communications

Audio prompts instruct the participant to tune a radio to a target frequency. The participant must identify whether the prompt uses their callsign (respond) or a distractor (ignore).

• Navigation: ↑ ↓ to select radio (NAV1, NAV2, COM1, COM2)
• Tuning: ← → to adjust frequency by 0.1 MHz
• Validation: Enter to confirm
• Callsigns auto-generated from a configurable regex pattern

Key Parameters

Parameter	Default	Description
callsignregex	[A-Z][A-Z][A-Z]\d\d\d	Regex for generating callsigns
othercallsignnumber	5	Number of distractor callsigns
voicegender	female	male or female voice
voiceidiom	french	Language: english or french
radioprompt	—	Trigger a prompt: own or other
maxresponsedelay	20000	Response window (ms)
promptlist	[NAV1, NAV2, COM1, COM2]	Radio labels
automaticsolver	False	Enable auto-tuning

Performance Metric

Proportion of correct responses among the last 4 interactions.

Resources Management

A system of 6 tanks (A–F) and 8 pumps (NUM 1–8). Tanks A and B are “target” tanks that leak continuously. The participant activates/deactivates pumps to maintain levels within tolerance.

• Tanks C–F are supply tanks (E and F have infinite capacity by default)
• Pumps can be in states: on, off, or failure
• Pump failures are injected via scenario events

Key Parameters

Parameter	Default	Description
tank-X-level	2500	Initial volume
tank-X-max	4000	Maximum capacity
tank-X-target	2500	Target level
tank-X-lossperminute	800	Leak rate (units/min)
pump-N-flow	800	Pump flow rate (units/min)
pump-N-state	off	Pump state: on, off, failure
toleranceradius	250	Acceptable deviation from target (0 = disabled)
automaticsolver	False	Enable auto-management

Performance Metric

Proportion of time tanks A and B stay within tolerance over the last 5 seconds.

Scheduling Panel

Displays a chronological timeline of upcoming events and the automation state of each task. Helps participants anticipate workload changes.

Key Parameters

Parameter	Default	Description
minduration	8	Time window shown (minutes)
displaychronometer	True	Show elapsed time counter
reversechronometer	False	Show remaining time instead
displayedplugins	[sysmon, track, communications, resman]	Tasks shown on the timeline

Performance Gauge

Displays a real-time bar showing the worst-of performance score across all active tasks. Provides continuous awareness of overall operator effectiveness.

Per-Task Computation

Task	Computation Method
sysmon	Average of last 4 signal detections (hits/misses), mapped 0–1
track	Proportion of time cursor is inside target over last 5 seconds
resman	Proportion of time tanks A/B stay within tolerance over last 5 seconds
communications	Proportion of correct responses among last 4 interactions

Scores are unavailable until minimum event thresholds are reached. The displayed value is always the lowest individual task score.

Key Parameters

Parameter	Default	Description
criticallevel	20	Threshold below which the bar turns critical color
defaultcolor	green	Normal performance color
criticalcolor	red	Critical performance color
shadowundercritical	True	Show shading below critical threshold
ticknumber	5	Number of graduation marks

Replay Participants

Replay any recorded session from CSV log files, with full input visualization and seeking controls.

Overview

Playback Controls

A timeline slider provides direct seeking to any point in the session.

Input Replay

State Replay

The full plugin state is reconstructed from log entries:

• Cursor position — tracking reticle follows the recorded trajectory
• Radio frequencies — communications radios show the exact tuning state
• Scale values — sysmon gauges reflect failure/resolution events
• Tank levels & pump states — resman shows the full resource system state

Time Mapping

Log Format

Sessions are recorded in CSV in the sessions/ directory:

logtime,scenario_time,type,module,address,value

Example Log Entries

logtime,scenario_time,type,module,address,value
13869.194101,0,version,,,1.5.2
13869.194258,0,session_id,,,12
13869.194646,0,input,keyboard,ENTER,release
13869.210557,0,state,sysmon,"task_title, text",SURVEILLANCE
13869.232539,0,event,sysmon,self,start
13869.238017,0.018296,state,track,"task_title, text",POURSUITE
13869.240641,0.018296,performance,track,cursor_in_target,1

The details of each entry are in the wiki.

Web Version Experimental

OpenMATB also runs in a web browser, with no installation for participants: Python runs in the page thanks to Pyodide and pyglet 3 draws with WebGL.

Build and Host

python web/build.py --serve              # build web/dist and serve it on http://localhost:8000
python web/build.py --pyodide local      # ship Pyodide with the page instead of loading it from its CDN
python web/build.py --scorm              # also build a SCORM 1.2 package for an LMS (--scorm 2004)
python web/build.py --cmi5               # also build a cmi5 package for an LMS (xAPI)

web/build.py writes a static site into web/dist (application files, pyglet and rstr wheels, fonts). The page must be served over HTTP: file:// does not work. Set config.ini (scenario, session output…) before building: it is part of the site.

Differences with the Desktop Version

Browsers

Collecting the Session Files

Set by web_session_output in config.ini (a comma-separated list, e.g. webdav, download). If the file cannot be sent anywhere, it is downloaded instead.

Online Studies (JATOS)

Lab Server (WebDAV)

Open Science Framework (DataPipe)

Learning Platforms (SCORM)

Learning Platforms (cmi5)

Psychophysiology

Try OpenMATB Experimental

Run a short scenario with the five tasks, directly in your browser. Nothing to install, and nothing is recorded.

▶  Launch the demo ▶  Launch the full version ↗

Full Web Version

The full web version ↗ opens the start page of OpenMATB: choose the language, run any scenario shipped with OpenMATB (with the questionnaires and instructions), or replay a session. The session file is downloaded at the end, and kept in your browser to be replayed later; nothing is sent to a server. To run your own scenarios or collect the files of participants, host your own copy (see the Web Version tab).

Before You Start

Controls

See the Tasks tab for what each task asks, and the Web Version tab to run your own experiments online.

Scientific Publications

Published studies that use or cite OpenMATB, spanning cognitive workload, automation, neurophysiology, and human-machine cooperation research.

1. Singh, S., Sanchez, R., Ororbia, A. G., & Heard, J. (2026). Formulating Reinforcement Learning for Human-Robot Collaboration through Off-Policy Evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02530.
2. Pontiggia, A., Quiquempoix, M., Fabries, P. A., Beauchamps, V., Jacques, C., Guillard, M., Beers, P., Malle, C., Gomez-Merino, D., Koulmann, N., Chennaoui, M., & Sauvet, F. (2026). Robust multimodal mental workload classification: A cross-physiological condition machine learning approach. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 277, 109251. doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2026.109251
3. Wang, X., & Yu, R. (2026). A dynamic ocular index for assessing mental workload across visual tasks. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 116, 104057. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2026.104057
4. Riedinger, F., Suied, C., Keane, R., Sciabica, J. F., & Dehais, F. (2026). Rough Auditory Alarms Mitigate Inattentional Deafness During Piloting-Like Task. Human Factors, 68(8), 1078–1097. doi:10.1177/00187208261431654
5. Ge, X., Xu, H., Zhang, K., Ni, H., Xu, J., & Song, X. (2026). Effects of Human-Automation Authority Allocation on Multitasking Performance under Workload Conditions. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2647133
6. Xu, H., Wang, L., Li, R., Zhang, J., Zou, J., Ma, X., Wang, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2026). Underload in sky: reducing the passive fatigue of pilots during cruise through an attention guided - active interactive seating system. Ergonomics. doi:10.1080/00140139.2026.2684756
7. Hochgeschurz, S., Schwarz, J., & Witte, T. E. F. (2026). Mental Workload Prediction Using Physiological Signals: Balancing Performance and Interpretability. Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26). doi:10.1145/3772318.3790359
8. Sale, C., Stolar, M. N., Patil, G., Gostelow, M. J., Wallier, J., Macpherson, M. C., Kruger, J.-L., Dras, M., Hosking, S. G., Kallen, R. W., & Richardson, M. J. (2026). Facial Movement Dynamics Reveal Workload During Complex Multitasking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.17767. arXiv:2603.17767
9. Blundell, J., Burns, C. G., & Perello-March, J. R. (2026). HAT-TIME: Human Automation Teaming - Trust Interaction Measurement Environment. In HCI International 2025 – Late Breaking Papers (LNCS), 163–180. doi:10.1007/978-3-032-12392-3_11
10. Hu, L., Liu, P., Ding, S., Cheng, T., Zhang, Y., & Baoyin, H. (2026). Human intelligence collaboration reliability: perception time distributions under under-trust for evaluation of human error of visual neglect. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 272, 112589. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2026.112589
11. Cun, W., Fan, H., Wang, L., Huang, Z., Shi, J., Gan, Y., Chu, J., & Chen, D. (2026). Selection of alarm displays for time- and error-critical tasks: A multi-hierarchy decision framework integrating network structure and multi-criteria decision analysis. Displays, 93, 103431. doi:10.1016/j.displa.2026.103431
12. Cun, W., Fan, H., Sun, J., Chu, J., & Chen, D. (2026). Redundancy Gains of Multimodal Alarms Across Flight-Task Variants: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2645440
13. Rey-Becerra, E., Tegtmeier, P., Hartwig, M., & Wischniewski, S. (2026). German version of subjective methods for measuring activation, mental workload, and attention in control rooms. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, 1698078. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1698078
14. Stasch, S.-M., Dapperger, E., & Mack, W. (2026). Exploring Individual Differences in Multitasking Performance for the Development of Adaptive Instructional Systems. In Adaptive Instructional Systems (LNCS), 121–138. doi:10.1007/978-3-032-30015-7_8
15. Karve, A. M., Doyon-Poulin, P., & Cooperstock, J. R. (2026). Design and Evaluation of Required Time of Arrival (RTA) Modules for Improved Pilot Performance and Situational Awareness. In HCI in Mobility, Transport, and Automotive Systems (LNCS), 14–29. doi:10.1007/978-3-032-30798-9_2
16. Schindler, H., & Onnasch, L. (2026). The Workload Multiverse: How Analytic Decisions Shape Gaze-Based Measures of Mental Workload. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. doi:10.1177/10711813261485910
17. Politowicz, M. S., & Yamani, Y. (2026). Visual attention in supervisory control: Examining the effects of mental models, information bandwidth, and contextual cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. doi:10.1037/xap0000589
18. Sale, C., Hosking, S., Kallen, R. W., & Richardson, M. J. (2026). Workload as Coordinative Instability: A Dynamical Reframing for Human Factors. PsyArXiv preprint. doi:10.31234/osf.io/3kqg7_v2
19. Sale, C., Macpherson, M. C., Patil, G., Miles, K., Kallen, R. W., Wallot, S., & Richardson, M. J. (2026). Nonlinear Methods for Analyzing Pose in Behavioral Research. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.01453. arXiv:2604.01453
20. Nicole, J., Giguère, R., Benesch, D., Chamberland, C., Paul, T. S., Ouellet, D., Marois, A., & Tremblay, S. (2026). Validating Stress Induction for Spaceflight Scenarios: A Manipulation Check Across Acute Stressor Types in Simulated Task Environments. Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies (IHIET-AI 2026), AHFE International. doi:10.54941/ahfe1007174
21. Giguère, R., Rhéaume, C., Clot, C., Trousselard, M., Niaussat, V., Gagnon, M.-P., Sasseville, M., & Marois, A. (2026). When Time Disappears: Uncovering Stress in an Analog Underground Mission. Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies (IHIET-AI 2026), AHFE International. doi:10.54941/ahfe1007176
22. Schindler, H., Schuhmann, D., & Onnasch, L. (2026). Every Breath You Take: Respiratory Rate and Other Psychophysiological Markers for Mental Workload Assessment. Poster, HFES Europe Chapter Annual Meeting 2026. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.27682.59845

1. Konig, J. L., Bidois, B. J., Manchester, R., Head, M. A., Owen, M. W., Hoskens, M., Dwivedi, A., & August, L. R. J. (2025). Navigating the Challenges of Wearables: A Case Study of Research-Grade Devices. Proceedings of OzCHI 2025. doi:10.1145/3764687.3769942
2. Huang, Y., Ding, L., Pei, J., & Li, Y. (2025). Cognitive and Physiological Assessment in a Mars Analog Habitat: Implications for Aerospace Medical Monitoring in Hypobaric Hypoxia. Acta Astronautica. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2025.11.002
3. Hilla, Y., Stasch, S.-M., & Mack, W. (2025). Habitual video gaming predicts multitasking performance while the role of cognitive capacity remains inconclusive. Scientific Reports, 15. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-25260-5
4. Li, X., Chu, J., Liu, X., & Li, F. (2025). A Dynamic Bayesian-Based Method for DFA in Specialized Vehicles. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2558019
5. Li, Y., Fang, W., Jiang, T., Yu, H., Zhao, R., Zhan, W., Sun, Z., & Li, Y. (2025). Effects of dynamic lighting on neurobehavioral performance under different mental states in the working area of a space station. Ergonomics, 1–21. doi:10.1080/00140139.2025.2544814
6. Chung, H., Holder, T., Shah, J. A., & Yang, X. J. (2025). A Systematic Review and Taxonomy of Human-Agent Teaming Testbeds. Human Factors, 68, 197–238. doi:10.1177/00187208251376898
7. Sharma, M., Duchevet, A., Daiber, F., Imbert, J.-P., & Rekrut, M. (2025). Distinguishing Startle from Surprise Events Based on Physiological Signals. IEEE MetroXRAINE 2025, 675–680. doi:10.1109/MetroXRAINE66377.2025.11340378
8. Reuter, M., Kirchhoff, B. M., Franke, T., Raduntz, T., & Peifer, C. (2025). To trust or not to trust a human(-like) AI — A scoping review and conjoint analyses on factors influencing anthropomorphism and trust. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft, 79, 402–432. doi:10.1007/s41449-025-00481-6
9. Gossett, E., Piscopo, C., Hughes, J., Khan, S., Wakely, S., Salinas-Aguayo, A., Parker, T., Henning, R. A., & Kim, I. (2025). Enhancing Ecological Validity in Wearable Sensor Stress Research: A Novel Laboratory Paradigm Integrating Cognitive, Physical, and Social-Evaluative Demands. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 69, 1313–1318. doi:10.1177/10711813251371653
10. Gaillet, A. G., Suied, C., Arnold, G., & Taffou, M. (2025). Auditory-tactile presentation accelerates target detection in a multitasking situation. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 10. doi:10.1186/s41235-025-00664-z
11. Vogl, J., Atchley, J. A., Bommer, S., & McCurry, C. D. (2025). The United States Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory Multi-Attribute Task Battery: Recent Developments. IEEE RAPID 2025, 1–2. doi:10.1109/rapid64712.2025.11151324
12. Wang, S., Liu, S., Liu, Z., Liu, Y., Liao, H., Luo, Y., You, X., & Li, Y. (2025). The Effect of Flight Expertise and Automation Reliability on Task Performance and Mental Workload in a Multitasking Environment. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 42, 1128–1140. doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2520919
13. Wittels, H. L., Wishon, M., Davilla, H., McDonald, S. M., Temme, L. A., & Wittels, S. (2025). Threat of Hyperthermia During Live-Fire Combat Training in the UH-60 Helicopter: An Important Tool for Operator State Monitoring of US Warfighter Aircrew. Military Medicine. doi:10.1093/milmed/usaf214
14. Stasch, S.-M., Mack, W., & Hilla, Y. (2025). Always in (partner) action? Working in teams may improve simulated flight performance — but only in the apt cognitive control state. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 10. doi:10.1186/s41235-025-00633-6
15. Hilla, Y., Stefani, M., Friedrich, E. V. C., & Mack, W. (2025). Military experience predicts military multitasking better than laboratory measures in officer cadets. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 10. doi:10.1186/s41235-025-00639-0
16. Stasch, S.-M., Hilla, Y., & Mack, W. (2025). The Invisible Copilot? Assessing Task Engagement and Team Dynamics in a Virtual Flight Environment Using Eye-Tracking Metrics. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 15(1), 45–61. doi:10.1027/2192-0923/a000293
17. Duchevet, A., Imbert, J.-P., Garcia, J., Lamirault, B., & Causse, M. (2025). Investigating the Independent and Combined Effects of Startle and Surprise in a Simulated Flight Task. Human Factors, 67, 1170–1187. doi:10.1177/00187208251342100
18. Zhou, Y., Xu, X., & Zhang, D. (2025). Cognitive load recognition in simulated flight missions: an EEG study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 19. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2025.1542774
19. Stasch, S.-M. & Mack, W. (2025). When automation fails — Investigating cognitive stability and flexibility in a multitasking scenario. Applied Ergonomics, 125, 104461. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104461
20. Hossain, M. S., Clapp, J. D., & Novak, V. D. (2025). Effects of Algorithmic Transparency on User Experience and Physiological Responses in Affect-Aware Task Adaptation. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 16(3), 2491–2498. doi:10.1109/TAFFC.2025.3530318
21. Stasch, S.-M., Ernst, F., von Mankowski, J., Sachau, E., Mack, W., & Sachau, D. (2025). Beyond Traditional Radio: Exploring Spatial-audio Systems for Enhanced Communication in Multitasking Flight Environments. Research Square preprint. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-6219019/v1
22. Stasch, S.-M., & Mack, W. (2025). Advancing Cognitive State Monitoring: Diagnosing Cognitive Control States Under Varying Automation Reliability Level. In Adaptive Instructional Systems (LNCS), 247–263. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-92967-0_18
23. Gao, Y., & Fu, S. (2025). An Integrated Eye-Tracker-Computer System for Operator Competency Assessment. In Human-Computer Interaction (LNCS), 347–361. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-93845-0_24
24. Xie, W., Zhong, Z., Wang, X., Quan, L., Lu, Y., & Fu, S. (2025). The Impact of Event Preview on Pilot Attention Allocation During a Multitasking Test. In Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics (LNCS), 276–286. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-93721-7_19
25. Sato, T., Chancey, E., & Yamani, Y. (2025). Automation to Autonomy: Temporal Dynamics of Trust and Visual Attention Allocation Did Not Evolve. Research Square preprint. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7769193/v1

1. Wang, S., Liu, Y., Wang, X., Liu, Z., You, X., & Li, Y. (2024). Where Is the Function Allocation Boundary? The Effect of Degree of Automation on Attention Allocation and Human Performance Under Different Reliabilities. Human Factors, 67, 757–775. doi:10.1177/00187208241311808
2. Vogl, J., McCurry, C. D., Bommer, S., & Atchley, J. A. (2024). The United States Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory Multi-Attribute Task Battery. Frontiers in Neuroergonomics, 5. doi:10.3389/fnrgo.2024.1435588
3. Konig, J. L., Penaredondo, J., Lim, N., Hinze, A., & Bowen, J. (2024). The Impact of Data Aggregation: Advocating for Individualized Analysis in Wearable Sensor Research. Proceedings of OzCHI 2024. doi:10.1145/3726986.3727031
4. Che, X., Tang, R., Lin, J., Hui, Q., Zhang, Y., Li, J., & Lan, J. (2024). Three-dimensional (3D) stimuli are always better than two-dimensional (2D) multi-tasking? A high cognitive load in 3D-MATB-II. Behavioural Brain Research, 477, 115322. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2024.115322
5. Novak, V. D., Kaya, R. A. H., Erion, C. J., Hossain, M. S., & Clapp, J. D. (2024). Effects of Sensor Setup Time and Comfort on User Experience in Physiological Computing. IEEE SMC 2024, 3776–3780. doi:10.1109/SMC54092.2024.10831219
6. Remigereau, A., Darses, F., Dozias, B., & Albentosa, J. (2024). Design and validation of a simulated multitasking environment for assessing the cognitive load on the infantry squad leader. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1433822
7. Pontiggia, A., Gomez-Merino, D., Quiquempoix, M., Beauchamps, V., Boffet, A., Fabries, P., Chennaoui, M., & Sauvet, F. (2024). MATB for assessing different mental workload levels. Frontiers in Physiology, 15. doi:10.3389/fphys.2024.1408242
8. Pontiggia, A., Fabries, P., Beauchamps, V., Quiquempoix, M., Nespoulous, O., Jacques, C., Guillard, M., van Beers, P., Ayounts, H., Koulmann, N., Gomez-Merino, D., Chennaoui, M., & Sauvet, F. (2024). Combined Effects of Moderate Hypoxia and Sleep Restriction on Mental Workload. Clocks & Sleep, 6, 338–358. doi:10.3390/clockssleep6030024
9. Wittels, H. L., Wittels, S., Wishon, M., Vogl, J., St. Onge, P. S., McDonald, S. M., & Temme, L. A. (2024). Examining the Influence of Cognitive Load and Environmental Conditions on Autonomic Nervous System Response in Military Aircrew: A Hypoxia-Normoxia Study. Biology, 13(5), 343. doi:10.3390/biology13050343
10. Orlov Savko, L., Qian, Z., Gremillion, G., Neubauer, C., Canady, J. D., & Unhelkar, V. (2024). RW4T Dataset: Data of Human-Robot Behavior and Cognitive States in Simulated Disaster Response Tasks. Proceedings of ACM/IEEE HRI 2024, 924–928. doi:10.1145/3610977.3637481
11. Novstrup, A., Tynan, M., Lin, J., & Heaton, J. (2024). Enhancing a Piloting Task Simulator with Real-time Performance Feedback, Autopilot Disruption, Shock Punishment, and Adaptive Task Difficulty. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC 2024), Paper No. 24281. PDF
12. Rao, A. K., Uttrani, S., Shah, D., Menon, V. K., Bhavsar, A., Roy Chowdhury, S., Negi, R., & Dutt, V. (2024). A Neurobehavioral Evaluation of the Efficacy of 1mA Longitudinal, Anodal TDCS on Multitasking and Transfer Performance. IEEE SMC 2024, 398–403. doi:10.1109/SMC54092.2024.10831866
13. Hilla, Y., Stefani, M., Nitzschner, M. M., & Mack, W. (2024). Flight Simulation Task Performance Predicts Military Multitasking Better Than Laboratory Measures. Human Error, Reliability, Resilience, and Performance (AHFE 2024), 132. doi:10.54941/ahfe1004881
14. Politowicz, M. S. (2024). Visual Attention in Remote Vehicle Supervision: Examining the Effects of Mental Models and Information Bandwidth. Master’s thesis, Old Dominion University. ODU Digital Commons

1. Liu, Y., Yu, Y., Tao, H., Ye, Z., Wang, S., Li, H., Hu, D., Zhou, Z., & Zeng, L. (2023). Cognitive Load Prediction From Multimodal Physiological Signals Using Multiview Learning. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 29, 3282–3292. doi:10.1109/JBHI.2023.3346205
2. Konig, J. L., Penaredondo, J., McCullagh, E., Bowen, J., & Hinze, A. (2023). Let’s Make it Accessible: The Challenges Of Working With Low-cost Commercially Available Wearable Devices. Proceedings of OzCHI 2023. doi:10.1145/3638380.3638415
3. Novak, V. D., Hass, D., Hossain, M. S., Sowers, A. F., & Clapp, J. D. (2023). Effects of adaptation accuracy and magnitude in affect-aware difficulty adaptation for the multi-attribute task battery. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 183, 103180. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103180
4. St. Onge, L., Gomez-Nino, A., Otsuka, Y., Temme, L. A., Wittels, H. L., Wishon, M., McDonald, S. M., Hecocks, D., & Wittels, S. (2023). Continuous Physiological Monitoring of the Combined Exposure to Hypoxia and High Cognitive Load in Military Personnel. Biology, 12(11), 1398. doi:10.3390/biology12111398
5. Lewis, C. M. & Gutzwiller, R. S. (2023). Examining post-error performance in a complex multitasking environment. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 8, 65. doi:10.1186/s41235-023-00512-y
6. Wang, S., Liu, Y., Li, S., You, X., & Li, Y. (2023). The Effect of Two-Stage Warning System on Human Performance Along with Different Takeover Strategies. SSRN / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4398187
7. Nguyen, T. & Gonzalez, C. (2023). Minimap: An interactive dynamic decision making game for search and rescue missions. Behavior Research Methods, 56, 2311–2332. doi:10.3758/s13428-023-02149-7
8. Pan, X., Sun, L., Ding, S., & Zuo, D. (2023). Impact Analysis of Situation Awareness Based on a Multitasking Difficulty Quantitative Model. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 40, 4758–4771. doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2221601
9. Bolton, M., Biltekoff, E., & Humphrey, L. (2023). The Mathematical Meaninglessness of the NASA Task Load Index: A Level of Measurement Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 53, 590–599. doi:10.1109/THMS.2023.3263482
10. Miller, J., Head, M. A., Owen, M. W., Hoskens, M. C. J., Konig, J. L., & Bowen, J. (2023). First Do No Harm: Cultural and Ethical Impacts of User Studies. Proceedings of OzCHI 2023, 71–77. doi:10.1145/3638380.3638420
11. Conte, S., Harris, D., & Blundell, J. (2023). Evaluating the Impact of Passive Fatigue on Pilots Using Performance and Subjective States Measures. In Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics (LNCS), 21–36. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-35392-5_2
12. Deniel, J., Dupuy, M., Duchevet, A., Matton, N., Imbert, J.-P., & Causse, M. (2023). An In-Depth Examination of Mental Incapacitation and Startle Reflex: A Flight Simulator Study. In Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics (LNCS), 46–59. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-35389-5_4
13. Deniel, J., Dupuy, M., Duchevet, A., Matton, N., Imbert, J.-P., & Causse, M. (2023). Eye-Interaction : Une étude multimodale de l’incapacitation cognitive chez les pilotes de ligne. 12e Colloque EPIQUE, Paris. ResearchGate
14. Stasch, S.-M., & Mack, W. (2023). Why the stability-flexibility-dilemma should be taken into consideration when studying pilots multitasking behaviour. Human Factors in Transportation (AHFE 2023), 95. doi:10.54941/ahfe1003846
15. van Bergen, G., van Miltenburg, M., van Stiphout, R., van Drongelen, A., Riesenbeck, L., Sieters, J., Dijksterhuis, G., Vingerhoeds, M., & Aarts, E. (2023). A comparison of coffee effects on vigilance and attention in pilots across simple and complex lab environments. Research Square preprint. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3638932/v1

1. Konig, J., Hinze, A., & Bowen, J. (2022). Workload categorization for hazardous industries: The semantic modelling of multi-modal physiological data. Future Generation Computer Systems, 141, 369–381. doi:10.1016/j.future.2022.11.019
2. Navarro, J., Jomard, E., Saleur, E., Abrard, W., & Cegarra, J. (2022). Influence of automation mode use on selection rates and subjective assessment over time. Cognition, Technology & Work, 24, 609–624. doi:10.1007/s10111-022-00712-4
3. Farago, E., Law, A. J., Hajra, S., & Chan, A. (2022). Blink and saccade detection from forehead EEG. IEEE I2MTC 2022, 1–6. doi:10.1109/I2MTC48687.2022.9806494
4. Hardy, D. & Hinkin, C. (2022). Mental Workload in Neuropsychology: An Example With the NASA-TLX in Adults With HIV. Frontiers in Neuroergonomics, 3. doi:10.3389/fnrgo.2022.881653
5. Hu, L., Pan, X., Ding, S., Zuo, D., & Kang, R. (2022). A quantitative input for evaluating human error of visual Neglection: Prediction of Operator’s detection time spent on perceiving critical visual signal. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 225, 108582. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2022.108582
6. Avril, E. (2022). Providing different levels of accuracy about the reliability of automation to a human operator: impact on human performance. Ergonomics, 66, 217–226. doi:10.1080/00140139.2022.2069870
7. Navarro, J., Osiurak, F., Ha, S., Communay, G., Ferrier-Barbut, E., Coatrine, A., Gaujoux, V., Hernout, E., Cegarra, J., Volante, W., & Hancock, P. (2022). Development of the Smart Tools Proneness Questionnaire (STP-Q): an instrument to assess the individual propensity to use smart tools. Ergonomics, 65, 1639–1658. doi:10.1080/00140139.2022.2048895
8. Avril, E. (2022). Automatisation de l’information et fiabilité: effets sur le comportement humain. Bulletin de Psychologie, 575, 67–71. doi:10.3917/bupsy.575.0067
9. Gao, L., Wang, T., An, X., & Ke, Y. (2022). Transfer Blocks Method on Multi-degrees Mental Workload Assessment with EEG. In Augmented Cognition (LNCS), 142–150. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-05457-0_12
10. Sharma, M., & Kumar, E. (2022). A Review on Estimation of Workload from Electroencephalogram (EEG) Using Machine Learning. In Advancements in Interdisciplinary Research (CCIS), 255–264. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-23724-9_24
11. Prasetyo, R. A. B. (2022). Mental workload in aviation: an investigation of physiological and qualitative assessment methods. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham. Nottingham Repository

1. Avril, E., Cegarra, J., Wioland, L., & Navarro, J. (2021). Automation Type and Reliability Impact on Visual Automation Monitoring and Human Performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 38, 64–77. doi:10.1080/10447318.2021.1925435
2. Avril, E., Valery, B., Navarro, J., Wioland, L., & Cegarra, J. (2021). Effect of Imperfect Information and Action Automation on Attentional Allocation. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 37, 1063–1073. doi:10.1080/10447318.2020.1870817
3. Durant, S., Wilkins, B., Woods, C., Uliana, E., & Stathis, K. (2021). Attention Guidance Agents with Eye-Tracking — A Use-Case Based on the MATBII Cockpit Task. EMAS@AAMAS 2021, LNCS vol 13190, 92–113. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-97457-2_6
4. Laouar-Zouyed, A. (2021). Étude de la prise de décision chez les pilotes d’aviation commerciale : relation entre le contrôle cognitif et la charge mentale. Thèse de doctorat, Université Bretagne Sud. tel-03519605

1. Avril, E., Navarro, J., Wioland, L., & Cegarra, J. (2020). Return to Manual Control After Monitoring Automated Systems: Effects of Different Levels of Reliability. International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2020), 317–323. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51038-1_44

1. Navarro, J., Heuveline, L., Avril, E., & Cegarra, J. (2018). Influence of human-machine interactions and task demand on automation selection and use. Ergonomics, 61(12), 1601–1612. doi:10.1080/00140139.2018.1501517
2. Navarro, J., Allali, S., Cabrignac, N., & Cegarra, J. (2021). Impact of Pilot’s Expertise on Selection, Use, Trust, and Acceptance of Automation. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 51, 432–441. doi:10.1109/THMS.2021.3090199