Next Article in Journal
School Food Policies Related to Soft Drink and Fruit Juice Consumption as a Function of Education Type in Flanders, Belgium
Previous Article in Journal
Community-Driven Priorities in Smartphone Application Development: Leveraging Social Networks to Self-Manage Type 2 Diabetes in a Low-Income African American Neighborhood
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 16
Issue 15
10.3390/ijerph16152716
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Systematic Review of Physiological Measures of Mental Workload

by
Da Tao
1,2,
Haibo Tan
1,
Hailiang Wang
2,3,
Xu Zhang
2,
Xingda Qu
1,2 and
Tingru Zhang
1,2,*
1
State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Power Safety Monitoring Technology and Equipment, China Nuclear Power Engineering Co., Ltd., Shenzhen 518172, China
2
Institute of Human Factors and Ergonomics, College of Mechatronics and Control Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China
3
Key Laboratory of Optoelectronic Devices and Systems of Ministry of Education and Guangdong Province, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(15), 2716; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152716
Submission received: 31 May 2019 / Revised: 21 July 2019 / Accepted: 26 July 2019 / Published: 30 July 2019
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Mental workload (MWL) can affect human performance and is considered critical in the design and evaluation of complex human-machine systems. While numerous physiological measures are used to assess MWL, there appears no consensus on their validity as effective agents of MWL. This study was conducted to provide a comprehensive understanding of the use of physiological measures of MWL and to synthesize empirical evidence on the validity of the measures to discriminate changes in MWL. A systematical literature search was conducted with four electronic databases for empirical studies measuring MWL with physiological measures. Ninety-one studies were included for analysis. We identified 78 physiological measures, which were distributed in cardiovascular, eye movement, electroencephalogram (EEG), respiration, electromyogram (EMG) and skin categories. Cardiovascular, eye movement and EEG measures were the most widely used across varied research domains, with 76%, 66%, and 71% of times reported a significant association with MWL, respectively. While most physiological measures were found to be able to discriminate changes in MWL, they were not universally valid in all task scenarios. The use of physiological measures and their validity for MWL assessment also varied across different research domains. Our study offers insights into the understanding and selection of appropriate physiological measures for MWL assessment in varied human-machine systems.

1. Introduction

Mental workload (MWL) has long been cited as an important factor that influences user performance [1,2], and is widely applied in the design and evaluation of complex human-machine systems, such as nuclear power plants [3], cockpits [4], and driving systems [5]. It has drawn increasing attention over the past two decades, as the increasing application of modern, complex technologies imposes ever greater cognitive demands on operators in varied occupational conditions [2,6].
MWL is a multidimensional concept in nature. It is different from physical workload and task load. For example, MWL differs from physical workload in that MWL emphasizes stress caused by task demands, while physical workload focuses more on strain imposed on the human body [1]. MWL is also distinguished from task load in that MWL reflects individuals’ subjective experience in performing particular tasks under certain environments and time constraints, while taskload refers to external duties or amount of work that individuals have to perform [7]. There appears no consensus on this concept. Among a number of proposed definitions for MWL, Young and Stanton’s definition is a global and widely accepted one. They suggested that MWL refers to ‘the level of attentional resources required to meet both objective and subjective performance criteria, which may be mediated by task demands, external support and past experience’ [8]. It has been widely recognized that MWL could be induced by factors such as task demands, stress, and fatigue [1]. Different people might also experience different levels of MWL under the same circumstance due to individual differences in personality, cognition, capabilities, efforts, skills, previous experience, and situational awareness.
MWL leads to changes in human performance and behavior. Suboptimal MWL can be either overload or underload [9]. According to multiple resource theory by Wickens [10], overload happens when cognitive resources required for task performance are more than those an individual has. Overload can lead to inefficiency and deteriorated task performance [10]. In contrast, underload occurs when one’s cognitive resources are underused. In underload status, one may be distracted from his/her main tasks and lose appropriate vigilance, thereby resulting in performance decrements [11]. Therefore, the measurement of MWL is particularly important for the assessment of safety-critical systems where suboptimal MWL can result directly in errors and accidents, and an optimum range of MWL is likely to be associated with best performance.
MWL can be measured in several ways, including subjective measures, performance measures, and physiological measures, among which, physiological measures have been increasingly used in recent years due to the development of new sensor technologies [12]. The use of physiological measures has several advantages. For example, data collection can be unobtrusive and would not interfere with primary tasks. The measures can be standardized and compared across different studies, and the measures are objective evaluations, requiring a relatively small sample and providing more accurate reports of MWL [1,7,12,13]. Physiological measures are a natural type of MWL index since the increase in MWL requires more cognitive resources in order to maintain performance. This process will affect a number of physiological activities in the human body, including cardiac activities, brain’s electrical activities, eye movements, and metabolic changes [14]. Accordingly, there are a number of physiological measures, such as electrocardiogram (ECG) measures, eye movement measures, electroencephalogram (EEG) measures, respiration measures, and electromyogram (EMG) measures (Charles and Nixon [12] provided a very good introduction to physiological measures in relation to MWL). For example, as the brain is the organ responsible for information processing and decision-making, MWL that is cognitively demanding should directly affect brain functions and be associated with electrical activities [15]. Thus, EEG measures would seem to be potentially valid measures of MWL. However, there appears to be no single true measure that can be universally valid in determining MWL across varied scenarios, as physiological responses caused by MWL are highly scenario-dependent, and are affected by a number of task characteristics and individual differences [12]. This leads to the fact that different physiological measures work differently in varied study scenarios.
Past decades have seen the publications of numerous studies that examined a number of physiological measures in relation to MWL. However, little work has been done to synthesize existing evidence to provide clear guidance for the selection of appropriate MWL measures. Jorna’s review confirmed heart rate (HR) as an effective measure for MWL [16]. Marquart et al. reviewed eye-related measures for drivers’ MWL [5]. Charles and Nixon [12], and Lean and Shan [7] conducted narrative reviews of physiological measures of MWL. However, previous reviews either focused only on a limited number of physiological measures [5,16] or provided little empirical evidence on the validity of the measures [5,7,12,16]. To address the research gap, this study was conducted to systematically review existing studies on physiological measures of MWL, to summarize evidence on their validity as agents of MWL, and to provide insights into the selection of appropriate physiological measures in MWL assessment.

2. Methods

2.1. Literature Search and Study Selection

This review was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [17]. A systematic literature search was conducted with databases of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES and ABI/INFORM Collection for studies published from the inception of the databases to 15 March 2019. The search terms included keywords related to physiological measures (physiol* OR heart rate OR blood pressure OR electrocardiogram OR electrodermal* OR electroencephalogram OR event-related potential* OR electrooculogram OR breath* OR respirat* OR eye* OR skin* OR ocular* OR brain* OR blink* OR pupil OR ERP OR EMG OR EEG OR ECG), mental (cognitive OR mental) and workload (workload OR task load OR effort* OR load) (See Appendix A for detailed search strategies for the four databases). We intentionally used broad search terms, including both keywords and associated controlled vocabulary, to reduce the chance of missing relevant studies. Titles and abstracts of the articles identified in the initial search were read and assessed to determine their relevance based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria. The full texts of potentially relevant studies were further reviewed for final inclusion. Reference lists of the included studies and several relevant review studies [1,5,7,12] were also manually searched to catch any possibly missed articles.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were included if (1) they empirically tested at least one physiological measure using relevant technologies, devices or sensors, (2) they used physiological measures to evaluate the changes in MWL, or examined the validity of physiological measures in discriminate varied MWL levels, and (3) the articles were written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals. For multiple studies using the same sample information (e.g., studies by Matthews et al. [18]), we only included the one that reported more physiological measures (e.g., the study by Matthews et al. [18]).
We excluded review studies that did not provide original data on physiological measures. Studies that had no quantitative analysis on relationships between physiological measures and MWL, and that examined psychosocial outcomes other than MWL (e.g., distress and worry [19]) were also excluded.

2.3. Data Extraction and Analysis

A coding scheme, which described what and how data should be extracted, was pre-constructed based on previous reviews [7,12] to guide data extraction. The information extracted included study characteristics (e.g., sample size, participants, task description, task domain), physiological measures, and associated statistical significance with regard to task demand/complexity or MWL. As studies used different terms for the same measure, we combined data for the terms in the analysis and used one single term to represent the measure. For example, inter-beat interval (IBI) and N1 were consolidated with R-R interval and N100, respectively.
It should be noted that the significant heterogeneity among studies in terms of MWL definitions, study designs, task scenarios, and the use of physiological measures prevented us from conducting a formal comparison and synthesis among studies through quantitative meta-analysis. For this reason, our study used a narrative synthesis for data analysis, as commonly did in previous studies [5,7,12]. However, we did provide information on the percentage of valid physiological indicators of MWL for readers to evaluate and compare. Those values must be interpreted with caution, because of the substantial variability in studies. In this study, a physiological measure is considered valid or sensitive to MWL if it was shown to be statistically significant with regard to changes in MWL under varied levels of task type, task demand or task complexity.
Following previous studies [5,7,12], the physiological measures in our study were grouped into seven categories: Cardiovascular measures (including electrocardiogram (ECG) measures), eye movement measures, electroencephalogram (EEG) measures, respiration measures, skin measures, electromyogram (EMG) measures and neuroendocrine measures. Cardiovascular and EEG measures were further divided into time- and frequency-domain measures, respectively. Table 1 shows abbreviations and short descriptions of the physiological measures used in our study.
Three authors (HW, XZ, and TZ) independently assessed the studies at all stages of the study selection and data extraction. The other author (DT) then cross-checked the extracted data. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion among the four authors until consensus was reached.

3. Results

Figure 1 illustrates the literature search and study selection process. Ninety-one eligible studies [3,18,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108] were identified after a screening of 9553 initial citations and the manual search. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of the 91 studies.

3.1. Study Characteristics

Efforts to use physiological measures to examine MWL dated back to the late 1980′s, beginning with studies by Australian researchers testing hormonal responses to a graded mental workload [47]. The majority of the studies (54%) were conducted in the past nine years, indicating that physiological measures gained increasing popularity in evaluating MWL in recent years. The sample sizes of the studies ranged from 4 to 150, with a median of 16. The studies were conducted in a variety of research domains, including aviation (38%), driving (12%), and nuclear power (7%), while the lab-based, domain-free studies are also represented in the sample of literature reviewed (26%). The studies recruited a diverse range of participants, including experienced drivers (7%), students (34%), pilots (24%), operators (7%) and other volunteers. Cardiovascular measures were the most frequently used measures that were tested for association with MWL (65%), followed by eye movement (42%) and EEG measures (29%), and then by respiration (19%), skin (8%), EMG (2%) and neuroendocrine measures (2%). Most studies used one to two (27%) and three to five (43%) measures for MWL assessment, while others used six or more measures (29%). Seventy-five percent of the studies also applied subjective measures to assess MWL, with NASA-task load index questionnaire (45%) being the most commonly used.

3.2. Physiological Measures of MWL

We identified 78 different physiological measures in relation to MWL. The measures were widely distributed in cardiovascular (34 measures), EEG (17 measures), EMG (1 measure), eye movement (13 measures), respiration (2 measures), skin (1 measure) and neuroendocrine (10 measures) categories. Table 3 shows the summary of physiological measures and their statistical significance reported in the reviewed studies across several research domains.
Overall, the 78 physiological measures were reported 403 times. In 292 times (72%), the physiological measures were reported as statistically significant indicators in relation to MWL, while in the remaining 110 times (28%) the physiological measures yielded no statistically significant effect in relation to MWL. Cardiovascular, eye movement and EEG measures were the most widely used measures in relation to MWL, with 76%, 67%, and 73% of times reported with statistical significance, respectively. Neuroendocrine and skin measures were more likely to be effective indicators of MWL, with 80% and 86% of times reported with statistical significance, respectively, though they were less frequently reported compared with other measures. However, both the number and frequency of measures and their statistical significance did not remain consistent across varied domains. For example, cardiovascular and EEG measures were more likely to be effective in assessing MWL in driving compared with other domains. Eye movement measures seemed less effective in assessing MWL in nuclear power domain, compared with other domains.

3.2.1. Cardiovascular Measures

Thirty-four cardiovascular measures were identified (Table 4). HR and HRV were the most frequently used ECG measures. The majority of the studies (67%) examining HR reported that HR was sensitive in discriminating tasks with varied MWL levels. HR increased with increased MWL indicated by task demands during a simulated flight (e.g., [34]), memory load during general computer-mouse work (e.g., [48]), and task difficulty in simulated air traffic control (e.g., [28]).
Among varied frequency-domain HRV measures, LF/HF ratio was the most widely used measures, followed by high frequency, low frequency, and mid-frequency. The majority of studies reported that LF/HF ratio (75%), high frequency (67%), mid-frequency (65%), and low frequency (67%) were sensitive to differentiate MWL. Decreased high frequency, mid-frequency, and low frequency indicated signs of increased MWL, as showed in air-to-ground training missions [103], general computer work [53], and agricultural sprayer operations with a navigation device [36]. LF/HF ratio increased as MWL became larger, as shown in psychological stress tests [35], simulated reactor shutdown procedures in a nuclear power plant [58], and traffic density monitoring tasks [45].
Among varied time-domain HRV measures, IBI was the most reported measure, followed by pNN50, SDNN, and RMSSD. Among 19 studies that examined IBI, thirteen (68%) reported that there was a significant difference in IBI for tasks with varied MWL levels. IBI decreased as MWL increased, as shown in general multi-attribute tasks [44], instrument flight rules proficiency test [70], and lane change driving tasks [52]. IBI could also discriminate flight simulator tasks with high, medium and low load levels [65]. Most of the studies that examined pNN50 (64%) and SDNN (90%) reported that the measures were negatively associated with MWL. For example, pNN50 became smaller in more psychologically stressed tests [35], and air-to-ground training missions with larger psychophysiological workload [103]. SDNN decreased as task demands increased in instrument approach tasks with a high-fidelity simulator [69], emergency operating procedures in digital nuclear power plants [3] and threat detection and/or change detection tasks during unmanned ground vehicle operation [18]. Seventy-eight percentage of studies that reported RMSSD showed a positive association of this measure with MWL, in tasks such as traffic density monitoring [45], driving tracking [79], and N-back tasks with working memory and mental calculation processes [68]. Other ECG measures included very low frequency [52,57], HRVTRI [69,70], total power [3,76], and T-wave measures [52,79], and they were reported to be sensitive to MWL in one or two studies.
Apart from ECG measures, blood pressure measures (e.g., systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure) were also often used to measure MWL. All eight studies that reported systolic blood pressure showed its validity in discriminating MWL, while five of six studies (83%) that reported diastolic blood pressure demonstrated its effectiveness in differentiating MWL. An increase in blood pressure measures was associated with increased MWL during simulated flight tasks [96], general computer-based memory work with secondary tasks [48], and simulated reactor shutdown procedures in a nuclear power plant [58]. Blood oxygenation was not a widely used, yet a valid, metric for MWL measurement being reported by three studies. It showed that blood oxygenation was sensitive to MWL in N-back tasks with working memory and mental calculation processes [68], threat/change detection tasks in unmanned ground vehicle operations [18] and simulated air traffic control tasks [28].

3.2.2. Eye Movement Measures

Thirteen eye movement measures were identified (Table 5). Blink rate, pupil diameter, blink duration, and fixation duration were the most frequently used measures. The majority of the studies that examined blink rate (71%), pupil diameter (79%) and fixation duration (73%) reported a statistically significant difference in discriminating tasks with varied MWL levels. Blink rate was found to decrease when high visual workload was induced in air traffic control tasks [28], abnormal attitude identification tasks during flight simulation [100], and emergency operating procedures in digital nuclear power plants [3]. Pupil diameter was significantly larger when performing demanding air traffic controller operations [20] and operation procedures in a nuclear power plant [31] and when interacting with computer-generated artificial environments with a higher MWL level [38]. Fixation duration decreased as task demand increased in simulated flight tasks [34], simulated driving tasks [50], and psychological stress tests [35]. Around half of the studies (58%) that reported blink duration found a negative association between this measure and MWL. Blink duration decreased during such high complexity tasks as simulated nuclear control tasks [58], simulated flight tasks [96] and multiple tasks [49]. Fixation rate was reported to be positively correlated with MWL (50%), for example, in pilot mission tasks [91], and hypermedia interaction tasks [39].
In contrast, saccade-related measures, such as saccade velocity, saccade rate, saccadic amplitude and saccade duration, were mainly reported in the aviation domain. For example, saccadic peak velocity decreased with increasing cognitive load in ATC simulated multitasks [40]. Saccade rate was significantly lower during emergency flight tasks than during normal flight tasks for more experienced pilots [99]. Saccadic amplitude was significantly smaller when performing demanding air traffic controller operations [20] and complex tone counting tasks [72]. Saccade duration became shorter in simulated air traffic control conflict detection tasks that induced more cognitive workload [71]. Several studies also showed that increasing task difficulty led to a decrement in blink interval, and an increment in blink amplitude [49]. Other measures of MWL included fixation spread and dwell time, but their validity has only been proved in one or two studies.

3.2.3. EEG Measures

EEG measures, including ERP and spectral measures, are also widely used to evaluate variations of MWL (Table 6). Among frequency-domain measures, alpha (α) power, theta (θ) power, and beta (β) power were examined in more than ten studies, with 59%, 75%, and 58% of them showing statistical significance, respectively. Alpha power has been found to be sensitive to MWL in air traffic control tasks [28], multi-attribute tasks [49], with increased task demands resulting in a decrease in alpha power [28,43,59]. Both θ power and β power was found to be positively associated with MWL in air traffic control tasks [28], threat/change detection tasks during unmanned ground vehicle operations [18] and code error inspection tasks for software engineers [63]. Four studies (80%) that reported delta (δ) power and two studies that reported gamma (γ) power found their positive relationships with MWL. Both δ power and γ power were shown to be sensitive to different MWL levels when performing mission tasks in a simulator [42] and understanding and inspecting code for syntax errors for software engineers [63]. Several complex measures, such as ratios of α/θ, θ/β and (β+γ)/(α+θ) have also been applied to reflect MWL in a small number of studies. Task difficulty was positively related to (β+γ)/(α+θ) ratio [32] and accompanied by a decrease in α/θ ratio [59].
ERP measures were less frequently used to evaluate MWL. Generally, the amplitudes of P300, P3a, N100, and P3a declined as task difficulty increased. Three studies examined P300 and N100, respectively, and all found that they were reliable measures of MWL. P300 was sensitive to MWL in reconnaissance tasks with rotary-wing aircraft [89], in the prolonged usage of brain-computer interface [61], and in general visuo-motor tasks [74]. Both N100 and P3a were sensitive to MWL in the use of an in-vehicle information system [90], and in cognitive tasks within computer-assisted rehabilitation environment [88]. N100 was also a valid measure in differentiating MWL in general visuo-motor tasks [74], while P3a was a valid measure in differentiating MWL in flight simulation tasks [101]. Other measures of MWL included LPP, P3b, and MMN, but their validity has only been proved in one or two studies.

3.2.4. Respiration Measures

Two respiration measures were identified (Table 7). Respiration rate was a widely used measure of MWL, reported in 17 studies (19%). Respiration rate was higher as the difficulty increased during simulated ATC tasks [28] and simulated aviation tasks [43]. The findings were also replicated in other domain-free tasks, such as mental arithmetic tasks [108], multi-attribute tasks [43,44,49], and continuous memory tasks [22]. Five studies (5%) reported respiration amplitude, and only two of them showed that respiration amplitude was sensitive to MWL [95,96].

3.2.5. Skin Measures

One skin measure (i.e., skin conductance) was identified in our study (Table 7). Six of seven studies (85%) that measured skin conductance found a positive relationship between skin conductance and MWL. Skin conductance became larger with increased difficulty for a secondary cognitive task [73], for simulated driving tasks [50], and for multi-attribute tasks [43].

3.2.6. EMG Measures

Three studies (85%) used EMG measures for MWL assessment (Table 7), and two of them found that EMG amplitude was sensitive to MWL [45,48]. A significant increase in EMG amplitude was detected when task demand was introduced [45].

3.2.7. Neuroendocrine Measures

Ten neuroendocrine measures were identified (Table 7) from two studies, which collected data on the measures from participants’ blood samples. One study found that plasma ACTH, beta-endorphin, plasma cortisol, plasma prolactin, plasma noradrenaline, and plasma adrenaline were sensitive to MWL in instrument flying flight mission among student pilots [66], while another showed the validity of adrenaline excretion and salivary cortisol concentration in assessing MWL in mental arithmetic tests [47]. However, their findings have not been confirmed by other studies.

4. Discussion

While a number of physiological measures are available for MWL assessment in varied human-computer interaction scenarios, their wide application may be largely inhibited by limited knowledge on their validity to act as effective agents of MWL. In other words, whether a physiological measure is able to effectively discriminating varied MWL levels seems unknown. As such, the purpose of this review was to systematically synthesize empirical studies to provide a comprehensive understanding of the use of physiological measures for quantifying MWL and to provide a general conclusion for the validity of the physiological measures for MWL assessment. Our review encompassed 91 studies that quantitatively investigated MWL with a variety of physiological measures. It shows that most physiological measures were found to be able to discriminate changes in MWL, though they were not universally valid in all task scenarios. In addition, the use of physiological measures and their validity for MWL assessment varied across different research domains.

4.1. Primary Findings

Overall, our review identified 78 physiological measures that were tested for association with MWL. The measures were widely distributed in categories such as cardiovascular, eye movement, EEG, respiration, EMG, skin, and neuroendocrine measures. Consistent with previous reviews [5,7,12], our study found that cardiovascular, eye movement and EEG measures were the most widely used and effective measures across varied research domains, with 76%, 67%, and 73% of times reported with a significant association with MWL, respectively. For example, Charles and Nixon’ review found that the validity of ECG, ocular, blood pressure and respiratory measures as agents of MWL has been confirmed by a number of studies [12], while another review suggested HRV as one of the most reliable measures [109].
In particular, we identified 34 cardiovascular measures, which were shown to be valid for discriminating changes in MWL in 76% of task scenarios. HR was the most frequently used, partly due to its ease for data collection. Sixty-nine percentage of studies that examined HR (25 studies) observed statistical significance. This finding has also been confirmed by previous reviews [16,109]. Other widely used measures included both time- and frequency- domain HRV measures, such as HF, IBI, LF/HF ratio. They were reported to be effective in discriminating MWL in more than 60% of studies that examined them. The reason why these cardiovascular measures can be sensitive to MWL has been well documented. It has been suggested that when people are under the state of heavy MWL, sympathetic nerves would take control of cardiac activity, which, for example, would cause a decrease in HF and IBI and an increase in LF/HF in response to MWL [7]. The HR and HRV measures have been widely validated in discriminating MWL across varied research domains and thus are recommended in future studies. In addition, we also identified a number of ECG measures that were reported to be valid but less frequently used in MWL assessment. These measures, in theory, may also be useful in discriminating changes in MWL but were only examined in limited research domains (e.g., T-wave and P-wave-related measures [52,79]). Therefore, future studies are also recommended to validate their effectiveness in MWL assessment in other domains.
The reviewed studies reported on 13 eye movement measures. All were reported to be sensitive to changes in MWL by at least one study. For example, pupil diameter was consistently showed to increase in mentally demanding tasks, as reported in 79% of the studies that examined this measure. In the majority of task scenarios, blink and fixation measures were reported to be sensitive to variations of MWL (e.g., 71%, 58%, 73%, and 50% for blink rate, blink duration, fixation duration and fixation rate, respectively). The eye movement measures were extensively used in nuclear power and aviation domains. This seems intuitive as there are a number of visually demanding tasks (e.g., scanning interfaces and monitoring a huge body of visual information) in these domains. Eye movement measures could therefore effectively capture MWL changes induced by visually demanding tasks and fit for the task requirements in the domains [5]. Similarly, saccade related measures (e.g., saccade velocity, saccade rate, and saccadic amplitude) were examined in many studies in aviation, and they were shown to be comparably valid in discriminating changes in MWL as blink and fixation measures did.
Another type of widely adopted measures came from EEG recordings. Seventeen EEG measures were identified in the reviewed studies. In 73% of the task scenarios, they were shown to be valid for discriminating changes in MWL. Changes in MWL could be reflected by several frequency-domain EEG measures, including α, θ, β, δ, and γ power. For example, it is suggested that alpha power reflects idling state, the default mode of brain activity. A high alpha power is able to indicate a low level of MWL. Theta power increases in working memory processes, and is able to reflect a high level of MWL. Few studies also created complex indicators in MWL by integrating multiple measures, such as the α/θ ratio, and the θ/β ratio. These complex indicators were shown to be sensitive to changes in task demand or task complexity [57,59]. Our study also identified a number of ERP components that were sensitive to changes in MWL. P300, N100, P2, P3a, and N200 were often used as objective evaluations of MWL, probably because they are affected by perceptual/central processing resources, and therefore are likely to show a graded sensitivity to processing demands [78,110].
It is intriguing that respiration and skin measures were also frequently used in the reviewed studies. Skin conductance was consistently shown to be sensitive to MWL, while the results for respiration measures seem mixed. For example, respiration rate was shown to be correlated with MWL in cognitive tasks in a simulated driving environment [73], while it was not sensitive to changes in workload in continuous, interactive control tasks [49]. The changes in respiration measures may result from increased metabolic demands required from the tasks, which is likely to cause stress and sweat [22,44,49,108]. However, not all mentally demanding tasks cause metabolic demands in practice that could lead to changes in respiration. In fact, respiration measures are highly affected by physical workload, which may interrupt respiratory patterns, leading to variations that make the measures unrelated to MWL [24,89]. Therefore, respiration measures may not be applicable in scenarios where physical workload can be a confounding factor.
Our study found that the literature paid relatively little attention to EMG and neuroendocrine measures. It may be intuitive to understand the infrequent use of EMG measures, as they are more likely to be sensitive to physical workload [111], rather than MWL. Therefore, they are less likely to be recommended in future studies. For neuroendocrine measures, in spite of limited empirical studies, the evidence regarding their validity as agents of MWL seems encouraging. Eight of ten neuroendocrine measures were demonstrated to be sensitive to MWL. The results appear to suggest that neuroendocrine measures that are extracted from body fluids and blood sample can be more precisely reflect changes in physiological response induced by MWL [112]. While the use of neuroendocrine measures might be limited by the difficulty in data collection, their validity also requires further confirmation in future studies.
The use of physiological measures and their validity for MWL assessment also varied across different research domains. For example, IBI and LF/HF ratio were mostly shown to be valid agents of MWL in aviation, but not in driving and nuclear power domains. There was also a lack of studies using EEG measures in the driving domain. Whether the EEG measures are valid or not in driving tasks seem unknown. The inconsistency in the validity of the measures may have resulted from a number of study characteristics, including sample characteristics, task scenario, task complexity, and study duration. For example, the reviewed studies adopted remarkably different methods to manipulate MWL levels. Some studies used different types of tasks to induce variations of MWL (e.g., pursuit and tunnel tasks in flighting [95]), while other studies introduced MWL by incorporating secondary tasks [41,96], increasing the number of stimuli [49,76,105], and increasing the steps and information elements to accomplish tasks [3]. This indicates that MWL might be elicited from either verbal, spatial, visual or auditory processes, which differ much from each other. It is unknown to what extent MWL has been introduced by these methods. Therefore, the heterogenicity across studies might represent a key challenge to synthesizing and comparing the original studies across varied scenarios, and should be treated with caution in understanding the evidence obtained in this review.

4.2. Implications

This review raises many issues central to the use and effectiveness of physiological measures in MWL assessment. One central question that one would ask could be which physiological measures are most effective in MWL assessment. Based on the results of the reviewed studies, we currently cannot argue that there exists one single physiological measure that is universally effective in MWL assessment in response to a wide range of task scenarios. In other words, although most of the identified physiological measures were found to be able to discriminate variations of MWL, they were not universally reported to be valid in all studies. This may be because while each of the measures does capture users’ experience in response to MWL, they might be associated with different aspects of MWL [12]. It might provide an explanation for the mixed results for certain measures, that is, the measures may not match well task scenarios, as the tasks might have induced different aspects of MWL that the measures happened to be insensitive to [54]. A potentially effective alternative for this limitation is to combine multiple physiological measures in MWL assessment. Instead of relying on one single measure, combining multiple measures as a complex index to achieve a better assessment of MWL has increasingly been recognized in recent studies [3,54]. This method is expected to improve MWL assessment as it is likely to cover more comprehensive aspects of human response by MWL.
Another question one would bring about may be that which measure(s) should be used to best reflect MWL changes for a specific individual and in a specific scenario. However, there seems no sufficient evidence to answer this question based on current literature due to several complications. First, it appears that a significant association between a measure and MWL in one scenario does not necessarily guarantee that the measure is still valid in another scenario. In fact, our review found mixed results for many physiological measures. Second, each of the reviewed studies examined only a limited set of measures, preventing from easily comparing the effectiveness of the measures in the same scenario. Third, most of the studies reported results at a group level without consideration of demographic variables. The degree to which the associations between physiological measures and MWL would be sensitive to individual differences is unknown, and therefore cannot be easily generalized to individual levels. Finally, the validity of physiological measures can be affected by study scenarios, which differed remarkably across studies [12]. Thus, attempts to summarize the best physiological measures of MWL in certain scenarios and for certain individuals had little success.
It should be pointed out that our review does provide valuable evidence on the use and validity of physiological measures that are able to enhance our understanding of their associations with MWL in varied research domains. The findings from our study can serve as a reference guide for researchers and practitioners in their experiments design and the selection of appropriate physiological measures. It is also recommended that future studies should specify their study scenarios and consider individual differences in MWL assessment in order to enhance the understanding of the validity of MWL in specific scenarios.

4.3. Relevance To Previous Review Studies

To date, several reviews related to physiological measures of MWL have been published [5,7,12,16]. The results of our review confirm the findings of previous reviews that there are a number of physiological measures that can be used to assess MWL in varied domains. However, our study differs from these reviews in several respects. First, while previous studies focused only on a limited number of physiological measures [5,7,12,16], our study covered a wide range of measures that have been used to date, enabling readers to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the use of physiological measures for MWL assessment. Second, previous reviews provided no quantitative synthesis on the validity of the measures, which is considered to be highly important for practitioners and researchers to design experiments and choose the most appropriate measures. In contrast, our review provided quantitative information on the validity of each measure across varied research domains. This not only reflected more precisely the effectiveness of physiological measures as agents of MWL but also provided evidence on to what extent the measures are valid for MWL assessment. Finally, previous reviews tended to emphasize studies that reported statistically significant results and understate the importance of studies that found non-significant results. As a result, previous reviews may have exaggerated the validity of many physiological measures. In contrast, our study reported studies that found both significant and non-significant results, which is more likely to provide unbiased evidence.

5. Conclusions

This review study draws together empirical evidence to determine the validity of physiological measures in assessing MWL. We identified 78 physiological measures from 91 original studies, which were distributed in cardiovascular, eye movement, EEG, respiration, EMG, skin, and neuroendocrine categories. Cardiovascular, eye movement, and EEG measures were the most widely used across varied research domains, with 76%, 67%, and 73% of times reported significant associations with MWL, respectively. While most physiological measures were found to be able to discriminate changes in MWL, they were not universally valid in all task scenarios. In addition, the use of physiological measures and their validity for MWL assessment varied across different research domains. Our study offers insights into the understanding and selection of appropriate physiological measures for MWL assessment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.T., X.Q., and T.Z; formal analysis, D.T., H.W., H.T., and T.Z.; funding acquisition, D.T. and H.T.; investigation, D.T., H.W., and T.Z.; methodology, D.T., H.W., H.T., and T.Z.; project administration, D.T., X.Z. and T.Z.; supervision, X.Q. and T.Z.; validation, T.Z.; writing—original draft, D.T.; writing—review & editing, T.Z.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science of Foundation of China (Grant No. 71801156) and grants from State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Power Safety Monitoring Technology and Equipment of China (Grant No. 007-EC-B-2018-C83-P.S.20-01071 and 007-EC-B-2019-C83-P.S.20-01122), the Natural Science Foundation of SZU (grant no. 827000228 and 827000343), and the Start-up Grant of Shenzhen University (Grant No. 85304-00000132).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A Electronic Search Strategy

Databases were searched on March 15, 2018. The number in parentheses was the number of citations returned from the search.

Appendix A.1. MEDLINE via EBSCOhost Research Databases

  • AB (physiol* OR heart rate OR blood pressure OR electrocardiogram OR electrodermal* OR electroencephalogram OR electrooculogram OR event related potential* OR breath* OR respirat* OR eye* OR skin* OR ocular* OR brain* OR blink* OR pupil OR ERP OR EMG OR EEG OR ECG) MEDLINE (1,479,297)
  • SU (physiol* OR heart rate OR blood pressure OR electrocardiogram OR electrodermal* OR electroencephalogram OR electrooculogram OR event related potential* OR breath* OR respirat* OR eye* OR skin* OR ocular* OR brain* OR blink* OR pupil OR ERP OR EMG OR EEG OR ECG) MEDLINE (2,870,838)
  • AB (cognitive OR mental) MEDLINE (380,887)
  • SU (cognitive OR mental) MEDLINE (287,903)
  • AB (workload OR task load OR effort* OR load) MEDLINE (308,376)
  • SU (workload OR task load OR effort* OR load) MEDLINE (48,533)
  • 1 AND 3 AND 5 MEDLINE (4644)
  • 2 AND 4 AND 6 MEDLINE (386)
  • 7 OR 8 MEDLINE (4882) limited to academic journals

Appendix A.2. PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES and ABI/INFORM Collection via ProQuest

  • ab(physiol* OR heart rate OR blood pressure OR electrocardiogram OR electrodermal* OR electroencephalogram OR electrooculogram OR event related potential* OR breath* OR respirat* OR eye* OR skin* OR ocular* OR brain* OR blink* OR pupil OR ERP OR EMG OR EEG OR ECG) PsycINFO (398,184) PsycARTICLES (14,366) ABI/INFORM Collection (812,519)
  • su(physiol* OR heart rate OR blood pressure OR electrocardiogram OR electrodermal* OR electroencephalogram OR electrooculogram OR event related potential* OR breath* OR respirat* OR eye* OR skin* OR ocular* OR brain* OR blink* OR pupil OR ERP OR EMG OR EEG OR ECG) PsycINFO (447,280) PsycARTICLES (15,062) ABI/INFORM Collection (324,894)
  • ab(cognitive OR mental) PsycINFO (485,515) PsycARTICLES (32,999) ABI/INFORM Collection (159,250)
  • su(cognitive OR mental) PsycINFO (655,764) PsycARTICLES (50,688) ABI/INFORM Collection (207,335)
  • ab(workload OR task load OR effort* OR load) PsycINFO (125,139) PsycARTICLES (8408) ABI/INFORM Collection (1,296,666)
  • su(workload OR task load OR effort* OR load) PsycINFO (15,679) PsycARTICLES (1254) ABI/INFORM Collection (36,362)
  • 1 AND 3 AND 5 PsycINFO (3848) PsycARTICLES (156) ABI/INFORM Collection (280)
  • 2 AND 4 AND 6 PsycINFO (814) PsycARTICLES (37) ABI/INFORM Collection (12)
  • 7 OR 8 PsycINFO (4205) PsycARTICLES (178) ABI/INFORM Collection (288) limited to peer-reviewed journals

References

  1. Young, M.S.; Brookhuis, K.A.; Wickens, C.D.; Hancock, P.A. State of science: Mental workload in ergonomics. Ergonomics 2015, 58, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Galy, E. Consideration of several mental workload categories: Perspectives for elaboration of new ergonomic recommendations concerning shiftwork AU—Galy, Edith. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 2018, 19, 483–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gao, Q.; Wang, Y.; Song, F.; Li, Z.; Dong, X. Mental workload measurement for emergency operating procedures in digital nuclear power plants. Ergonomics 2013, 56, 1070–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Alexander, A.L.; Wickens, C.D.; Merwin, D.H. Perspective and coplanar cockpit displays of traffic information: Implications for maneuver choice, flight safety, and mental workload. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 2005, 15, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Marquart, G.; Cabrall, C.; Winter, J.D. Review of eye-related measures of drivers’ mental workload. Procedia Manuf. 2015, 3, 2854–2861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tao, D.; Yuan, J.; Liu, S.; Qu, X. Effects of button design characteristics on performance and perceptions of touchscreen use. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2018, 64, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lean, Y.; Shan, F. Brief review on physiological and biochemical evaluations of human mental workload. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 2012, 22, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Young, M.S.; Stanton, N.A. Mental workload. In Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods; Stanton, N.A., Hedge, A., Brookhuis, K., Salas, E., Hendrick, H.W., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  9. Brookhuis, K.A. Assessment of Drivers’ Workload: Performance, Subjective and Physiological Indices. In Stress, Workload and Fatigue; Hancock, P.A., Desmond, P.A., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2001; pp. 321–333. [Google Scholar]
  10. Wickens, C.D. Multiple Resources and Mental Workload. Hum. Factors 2008, 50, 449–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Young, M.S.; Stanton, N.A. Attention and automation: New perspectives on mental underload and performance. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 2002, 3, 178–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Charles, R.L.; Nixon, J. Measuring mental workload using physiological measures: A systematic review. Appl. Ergon. 2019, 74, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nixon, J.; Charles, R. Understanding the human performance envelope using electrophysiological measures from wearable technology. Cogn. Technol. Work 2017, 19, 655–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Fairclough, S.H.; Houston, K. A metabolic measure of mental effort. Biol. Psychol. 2004, 66, 177–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Wilson, G.F.; Fullenkamp, P.; Davis, I. Evoked potential, cardiac, blink, and respiration measures of pilot workload in air-to-ground missions. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 1994, 65, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  16. Jorna, P.G.A.M. Spectral analysis of heart rate and psychological state: A review of its validity as a workload index. Biol. Psychol. 1992, 34, 237–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009, 339, 2535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Matthews, G.; Reinerman-Jones, L.E.; Barber, D.J.; Abich, J.t. The psychometrics of mental workload: Multiple measures are sensitive but divergent. Hum. Factors 2015, 57, 125–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Matthews, G.; Reinerman-Jones, L.; Abich, I.V.J.; Kustubayeva, A. Metrics for individual differences in EEG response to cognitive workload: Optimizing performance prediction. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2017, 118, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ahlstrom, U.; Friedman-Berg, F.J. Using eye movement activity as a correlate of cognitive workload. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2006, 36, 623–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Allison, B.Z.; Polich, J. Workload assessment of computer gaming using a single-stimulus event-related potential paradigm. Biol. Psychol. 2008, 77, 277–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Backs, R.W.; Seljos, K.A. Metabolic and cardiorespiratory measures of mental effort: The effects of level of difficulty in a working memory task. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 1994, 16, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Berka, C.L.; Daniel, J.; Lumicao, M.N.; Yau, A.; Davis, G.; Zivkovic, V.T.; Olmstead, R.E.; Tremoulet, P.D.; Craven, P.L. EEG correlates of task engagement and mental workload in vigilance, learning, and memory tasks. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2007, 78, 231–244. [Google Scholar]
  24. Bernardi, L.; Wdowczyk-Szulc, J.; Valenti, C.; Castoldi, S.; Passino, C.; Spadacini, G.; Sleight, P. Effects of controlled breathing, mental activity and mental stress with or without verbalization on heart rate variability. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2000, 35, 1462–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Bousefsaf, F.; Maaoui, C.; Pruski, A. Remote detection of mental workload changes using cardiac parameters assessed with a low-cost webcam. Comput. Biol. Med. 2014, 53, 154–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Boutcher, Y.N.; Boutcher, S.H. Cardiovascular response to stroop: Effect of verbal response and task difficulty. Biol. Psychol. 2006, 73, 235–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Braby, C.D.; Harris, D.; Muir, H.C. A psychophysiological approach to the assessment of work underload. Ergonomics 1993, 36, 1035–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Brookings, J.B.; Wilson, G.F.; Swain, C.R. Psychophysiological responses to changes in workload during simulated air traffic control. Biol. Psychol. 1996, 42, 361–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Causse, M.; Senard, J.M.; Demonet, J.F.; Pastor, J. Monitoring cognitive and emotional processes through pupil and cardiac response during dynamic versus logical task. Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback 2010, 35, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chen, J.; Song, X.; Lin, Z. Revealing the “Invisible Gorilla” in construction: Estimating construction safety through mental workload assessment. Autom. Constr. 2016, 63, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chen, Y.; Yan, S.; Tran, C.C. Comprehensive evaluation method for user interface design in nuclear power plant based on mental workload. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2019, 51, 453–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Choi, M.K.; Lee, S.M.; Ha, J.S.; Seong, P.H. Development of an EEG-based workload measurement method in nuclear power plants. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2018, 111, 595–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Collet, C.; Salvia, E.; Petit-Boulanger, C. Measuring workload with electrodermal activity during common braking actions. Ergonomics 2014, 57, 886–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. De Rivecourt, M.; Kuperus, M.N.; Post, W.J.; Mulder, L.J. Cardiovascular and eye activity measures as indices for momentary changes in mental effort during simulated flight. Ergonomics 2008, 51, 1295–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Delaney, J.P.A.; Brodie, D.A. Effects of short-term psychological stress on the time and frequency domains of heart-rate variability. Percept. Mot. Skills 2000, 91, 515–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Dey, A.K.; Mann, D.D. A complete task analysis to measure the workload associated with operating an agricultural sprayer equipped with a navigation device. Appl. Ergon. 2010, 41, 146–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Di Stasi, L.L.; Antoli, A.; Canas, J.J. Main sequence: An index for detecting mental workload variation in complex tasks. Appl. Ergon. 2011, 42, 807–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Di Stasi, L.L.; Antolí, A.; Cañas, J.J. Evaluating mental workload while interacting with computer-generated artificial environments. Entertain. Comput. 2013, 4, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Di Stasi, L.L.; Antolí, A.; Gea, M.; Cañas, J.J. A neuroergonomic approach to evaluating mental workload in hypermedia interactions. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2011, 41, 298–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Di Stasi, L.L.; Marchitto, M.; Antolí, A.; Baccino, T.; Cañas, J.J. Approximation of on-line mental workload index in ATC simulated multitasks. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2010, 16, 330–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Durantin, G.; Gagnon, J.F.; Tremblay, S.; Dehais, F. Using near infrared spectroscopy and heart rate variability to detect mental overload. Behav. Brain Res. 2014, 259, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Dussault, C.; Jouanin, J.C.; Philippe, M.; Guezennec, C.Y. EEG and ECG changes during simulator operation reflect mental workload and vigilance. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2005, 76, 344–351. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  43. Fairclough, S.H.; Venables, L. Prediction of subjective states from psychophysiology: A multivariate approach. Biol. Psychol. 2006, 71, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Fairclough, S.H.; Venables, L.; Tattersall, A. The influence of task demand and learning on the psychophysiological response. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2005, 56, 171–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Fallahi, M.; Motamedzade, M.; Heidarimoghadam, R.; Soltanian, A.R.; Miyake, S. Effects of mental workload on physiological and subjective responses during traffic density monitoring: A field study. Appl. Ergon. 2016, 52, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Faure, V.; Lobjois, R.; Benguigui, N. The effects of driving environment complexity and dual tasking on drivers’ mental workload and eye blink behavior. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2016, 40, 78–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fibiger, W.; Evans, O.; Singer, G. Hormonal responses to a graded mental workload. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 1986, 55, 339–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Finsen, L.; Sogaard, K.; Jensen, C.; Borg, V.; Christensen, H. Muscle activity and cardiovascular response during computer-mouse work with and without memory demands. Ergonomics 2001, 44, 1312–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Fournier, L.R.; Wilson, G.F.; Swain, C.R. Electrophysiological, behavioral, and subjective indexes of workload when performing multiple tasks: Manipulations of task difficulty and training. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 1999, 31, 129–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Foy, H.J.; Chapman, P. Mental workload is reflected in driver behaviour, physiology, eye movements and prefrontal cortex activation. Appl. Ergon. 2018, 73, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Grassmann, M.; Vlemincx, E.; von Leupoldt, A.; Van den Bergh, O. Individual differences in cardiorespiratory measures of mental workload: An investigation of negative affectivity and cognitive avoidant coping in pilot candidates. Appl. Ergon. 2017, 59, 274–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Heine, T.; Lenis, G.; Reichensperger, P.; Beran, T.; Doessel, O.; Deml, B. Electrocardiographic features for the measurement of drivers’ mental workload. Appl. Ergon. 2017, 61, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hjortskov, N.; Rissen, D.; Blangsted, A.K.; Fallentin, N.; Lundberg, U.; Sogaard, K. The effect of mental stress on heart rate variability and blood pressure during computer work. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2004, 92, 84–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hogervorst, M.A.; Brouwer, A.M.; van Erp, J.B. Combining and comparing EEG, peripheral physiology and eye-related measures for the assessment of mental workload. Front. Neurosci 2014, 8, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Hoover, A.; Singh, A.; Fishel-Brown, S.; Muth, E. Real-time detection of workload changes using heart rate variability. Biomed. Signal Process. Control 2012, 7, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Horat, S.K.; Herrmann, F.R.; Favre, G.; Terzis, J.; Debatisse, D.; Merlo, M.C.G.; Missonnier, P. Assessment of mental workload: A new electrophysiological method based on intra-block averaging of ERP amplitudes. Neuropsychologia 2016, 82, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Hsu, B.W.; Wang, M.J.; Chen, C.Y.; Chen, F. Effective Indices for monitoring mental workload while performing multiple tasks. Percept. Mot. Skills 2015, 121, 94–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hwang, S.-L.; Yau, Y.-J.; Lin, Y.-T.; Chen, J.-H.; Huang, T.-H.; Yenn, T.-C.; Hsu, C.-C. Predicting work performance in nuclear power plants. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 1115–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Jaquess, K.J.; Lo, L.C.; Oh, H.; Lu, C.; Ginsberg, A.; Tan, Y.Y.; Lohse, K.R.; Miller, M.W.; Hatfield, B.D.; Gentili, R.J. Changes in mental workload and motor performance throughout multiple practice sessions under various levels of task difficulty. Neuroscience 2018, 393, 305–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jorna, P.G. Heart rate and workload variations in actual and simulated flight. Ergonomics 1993, 36, 1043–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kathner, I.; Wriessnegger, S.C.; Muller-Putz, G.R.; Kubler, A.; Halder, S. Effects of mental workload and fatigue on the P300, alpha and theta band power during operation of an ERP (P300) brain-computer interface. Biol. Psychol. 2014, 102, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tripathi, K.K.; Mukundan, C.R.; Mathew, T.L. Attentional modulation of heart rate variability (HRV) during execution of PC based cognitive tasks. Ind. J. Aerosp. Med. 2003, 47, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  63. Kosti, M.V.; Georgiadis, K.; Adamos, D.A.; Laskaris, N.; Spinellis, D.; Angelis, L. Towards an affordable brain computer interface for the assessment of programmers’ mental workload. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2018, 115, 52–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lahtinen, T.M.M.K.; Jukka, P.; Laitinen, T.; Leino, T.K. Heart rate and performance during combat missions in a flight simulator. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2007, 78, 387–391. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  65. Lehrer, P.; Karavidas, M.; Lu, S.E.; Vaschillo, E.; Vaschillo, B.; Cheng, A. Cardiac data increase association between self-report and both expert ratings of task load and task performance in flight simulator tasks: An exploratory study. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2010, 76, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Leino, T.K.; Leppaluoto, J.; Ruokonen, A.; Kuronen, P. Neuroendocrine responses to psychological workload of instrument flying in student pilots. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 1999, 70, 565–570. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  67. Luque-Casado, A.; Perales, J.C.; Cardenas, D.; Sanabria, D. Heart rate variability and cognitive processing: The autonomic response to task demands. Biol. Psychol. 2016, 113, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Mandrick, K.; Peysakhovich, V.; Remy, F.; Lepron, E.; Causse, M. Neural and psychophysiological correlates of human performance under stress and high mental workload. Biol. Psychol. 2016, 121, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Mansikka, H.; Simola, P.; Virtanen, K.; Harris, D.; Oksama, L. Fighter pilots’ heart rate, heart rate variation and performance during instrument approaches. Ergonomics 2016, 59, 1344–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Mansikka, H.; Virtanen, K.; Harris, D.; Simola, P. Fighter pilots’ heart rate, heart rate variation and performance during an instrument flight rules proficiency test. Appl. Ergon. 2016, 56, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Marchitto, M.; Benedetto, S.; Baccino, T.; Cañas, J.J. Air traffic control: Ocular metrics reflect cognitive complexity. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2016, 54, 120–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. May, J.G.; Kennedy, R.S.; Williams, M.C.; Dunlap, W.P.; Brannan, J.R. Eye movement indices of mental workload. Acta Psychol. 1990, 75, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mehler, B.; Reimer, B.; Coughlin, J.F.; Dusek, J.A. Impact of Incremental Increases in cognitive workload on physiological arousal and performance in young adult drivers. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2009, 2138, 6–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Miller, M.W.; Rietschel, J.C.; McDonald, C.G.; Hatfield, B.D. A novel approach to the physiological measurement of mental workload. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2011, 80, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Miyake, S. Multivariate workload evaluation combining physiological and subjective measures. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2001, 40, 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Miyake, S.; Yamada, S.; Shoji, T.; Takae, Y.; Kuge, N.; Yamamura, T. Physiological responses to workload change:A test/retest examination. Appl. Ergon. 2009, 40, 987–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Morales, J.M.; Ruiz-Rabelo, J.F.; Diaz-Piedra, C.; Di Stasi, L.L. Detecting mental workload in surgical teams using a wearable single-channel electroencephalographic device. J. Surg. Educ. 2019, 76, 1107–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Mun, S.; Whang, M.; Park, S.; Park, M.C. Effects of mental workload on involuntary attention: A somatosensory ERP study. Neuropsychologia 2017, 106, 7–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Myrtek, M.; Deutschmann-Janicke, E.; Strohmaier, H.; Zimmermann, W.; Lawerenz, S.; Brugner, G.; Muller, W. Physical, mental, emotional, and subjective workload components in train drivers. Ergonomics 1994, 37, 1195–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Nickel, P.; Nachreiner, F. Sensitivity and diagnosticity of the 0.1-Hz component of heart rate variability as an indicator of mental workload. Hum. Factors 2003, 45, 575–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Orlandi, L.; Brooks, B. Measuring mental workload and physiological reactions in marine pilots: Building bridges towards redlines of performance. Appl. Ergon. 2018, 69, 74–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Puma, S.; Matton, N.; Paubel, P.V.; Raufaste, E.; El-Yagoubi, R. Using theta and alpha band power to assess cognitive workload in multitasking environments. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2018, 123, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Recarte, M.A.; Nunes, L.M. Mental workload while driving: Effects on visual search, discrimination, and decision making. J. Exp. Psychol. 2003, 9, 119–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Reiner, M.; Gelfeld, T.M. Estimating mental workload through event-related fluctuations of pupil area during a task in a virtual world. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2014, 93, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Ryu, K.; Myung, R. Evaluation of mental workload with a combined measure based on physiological indices during a dual task of tracking and mental arithmetic. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2005, 35, 991–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Sauer, J.; Nickel, P.; Wastell, D. Designing automation for complex work environments under different levels of stress. Appl. Ergon. 2013, 44, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Schellekens, J.M.H.; Sijtsma, G.J.; Vegter, E.; Meijman, T.F. Immediate and delayed after-effects of long lasting mentally demanding work. Biol. Psychol. 2000, 53, 37–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Shaw, E.P.; Rietschel, J.C.; Hendershot, B.D.; Pruziner, A.L.; Miller, M.W.; Hatfield, B.D.; Gentili, R.J. Measurement of attentional reserve and mental effort for cognitive workload assessment under various task demands during dual-task walking. Biol. Psychol. 2018, 134, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Sirevaag, E.J.; Kramer, A.F.; Wickens, C.D.; Reisweber, M.; Strayer, D.L.; Grenell, J.F. Assessment of pilot performance and mental workload in rotary wing aircraft. Ergonomics 1993, 36, 1121–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Solís-Marcos, I.; Kircher, K. Event-related potentials as indices of mental workload while using an in-vehicle information system. Cogn. Technol. Work 2019, 21, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Svensson, E.A.I.; Wilson, G.F. Psychological and psychophysiological models of pilot performance for systems development and mission evaluation. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 2009, 12, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Tattersall, A.J.; Foord, P.S. An experimental evaluation of instantaneous self-assessment as a measure of workload. Ergonomics 1996, 39, 740–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Tattersall, A.J.; Hockey, G.R.J. Level of operator control and changes in heart rate variability during simulated flight maintenance. Hum. Factors 1995, 37, 682–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Veltman, J.A. A comparative study of psychophysiological reactions during simulator and real flight. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 2009, 12, 33–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Veltman, J.A.; Gaillard, A.W. Physiological workload reactions to increasing levels of task difficulty. Ergonomics 1998, 41, 656–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Veltman, J.A.; Gaillard, A.W.K. Physiological indices of workload in a simulated flight task. Biol. Psychol. 1996, 42, 323–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Vera, J.; Jimenez, R.; Garcia, J.A.; Cardenas, D. Intraocular pressure is sensitive to cumulative and instantaneous mental workload. Appl. Ergon. 2017, 60, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Vogt, J.; Hagemann, T.; Kastner, M. The Impact of workload on heart rate and blood pressure in enroute and tower air traffic control. J. Psychophysiol. 2006, 20, 297–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wang, Z.; Zheng, L.; Lu, Y.; Fu, S. Physiological indices of pilots’ abilities under varying task demands. Aerosp. Med. Hum. Perform. 2016, 87, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Wanyan, X.; Zhuang, D.; Lin, Y.; Xiao, X.; Song, J.-W. Influence of mental workload on detecting information varieties revealed by mismatch negativity during flight simulation. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2018, 64, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Wanyan, X.; Zhuang, D.; Zhang, H. Improving pilot mental workload evaluation with combined measures. BioMed Mater. Eng. 2014, 24, 2283–2290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  102. Wei, Z.; Zhuang, D.; Wanyan, X.; Liu, C.; Zhuang, H. A model for discrimination and prediction of mental workload of aircraft cockpit display interface. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2014, 27, 1070–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Wilson, G.F. Air-to-ground training missions: A psychophysiological workload analysis. Ergonomics 1993, 36, 71–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Wilson, G.F. An analysis of mental workload in pilots during flight using multiple psychophysiological measures. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 2009, 12, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Wilson, G.F.; Russell, C.A. Real-time assessment of mental workload using psychophysiological measures and artificial neural networks. Hum. Factors 2003, 45, 635–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Yan, S.; Tran, C.C.; Chen, Y.; Tan, K.; Habiyaremye, J.L. Effect of user interface layout on the operators’ mental workload in emergency operating procedures in nuclear power plants. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2017, 322, 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Yan, S.; Wei, Y.; Tran, C.C. Evaluation and prediction mental workload in user interface of maritime operations using eye response. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2019, 71, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Zhang, J.; Yu, X.; Xie, D. Effects of mental tasks on the cardiorespiratory synchronization. Respir. Physiol. Neurobiol. 2010, 170, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Hancock, P.A.; Meshkati, N.; Robertson, M.M. Physiological reflections of mental workload. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 1985, 56, 1110–1114. [Google Scholar]
  110. Kok, A. Event-related-potential (ERP) reflections of mental resources: A review and synthesis. Biol. Psychol. 1997, 45, 19–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Mohanavelu, K.; Lamshe, R.; Poonguzhali, S.; Adalarasu, K.; Jagannath, M. Assessment of human fatigue during physical performance using physiological signals: A review. Biomed. Pharmacol. J. 2017, 10, 1887–1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Ying, L.; Fu, S.; Qian, X.; Sun, X. Effects of mental workload on long-latency auditory-evoked-potential, salivary cortisol, and immunoglobulin A. Neurosci. Lett. 2011, 491, 31–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 16 02716 g001 550
Figure 1. Study search and selection procedures.
Figure 1. Study search and selection procedures.
Ijerph 16 02716 g001
Table
Table 1. List of abbreviations and short descriptions of the physiological measures used in this study.
Table 1. List of abbreviations and short descriptions of the physiological measures used in this study.
AbbreviationsDescriptions
ECGElectrocardiogram
EMGElectromyogram
EEGElectroencephalogram
ERPEvent-related Brain Potentials
HRHeart rate
HRVHeart rate variability
LF/HF ratioThe ratio of high frequency to low frequency
IBIInterbeat interval
NNNormal-to-normal intervals
NNminMinimum of NN
NNmaxMaximum of NN
NN50The number of successive NN interval pairs that differ by more than 50 ms
NN20The number of successive NN interval pairs that differ by more than 20 ms
pNN50Percentage of NN50 intervals
PNN20Percentage of NN20 intervals
SDNNStandard deviation of the NN intervals
RMSSDThe square root of the mean of the sum of the squares of difference between successive NN intervals differences
HRVTRIThe integral of the NN interval density distribution divided by the maximum of the distribution
TINNBase of the triangle used to approximate the histogram of NN time series
SaEnMeasure of irregularity or complexity in the series called sample entropy
ApEnMeasure of irregularity or complexity in the series called approximate entropy
SD1/SD2Ratio between the standard deviations SD1 and SD2 obtained from the Poincare plot
WPAband 2Normalized spectral power of the RR time series in the band [0.0375 Hz, 0.0750 Hz] obtained using wavelet packet analysis.
WPAband 4Normalized spectral power of the RR time series in the band [0.1125 Hz, 0.1500 Hz] obtained using wavelet packet analysis
SDSDStandard deviation of the difference of all subsequent NN intervals
α powerAlpha power
θ powerTheta power
β powerBeta power
δ powerDelta power
γ powerGamma power
Table
Table 2. Characteristics of the 91 studies analyzed.
Table 2. Characteristics of the 91 studies analyzed.
CharacteristicsN%
Year of publication
  Before 20001516%
  2000–20092730%
  2010–20194954%
Research domain where the studies were conducted
  Aviation3538%
  Driving1112%
  Nuclear power67%
  Domain-free2426%
  Not specified1516%
Type of participants
  Students3134%
  Pilots2224%
  Drivers67%
  Operators67%
  Not specified2527%
Type of physiological measures
  Cardiovascular measures5965%
  Eye movement measures3842%
  EEG measures2629%
  Respiration measures1719%
  Skin measures78%
  EMG measures22%
  Neuroendocrine measures22%
Number of physiological measures used
  1 to 225 27%
  3 to 539 43%
  6 to 1023 25%
  16 to 204 4%
Studies that also employed subjective MWL measures
  NASA-Task Load Index4145%
  Subjective Workload Assessment Technique (SWAT)33%
  Rating Scale of Mental Effort (RSME)55%
  Bedford Rating Scale (BRS)22%
  Other self-reported scales1719%
Table
Table 3. Physiological measures and their statistical significance reported in the reviewed studies.
Table 3. Physiological measures and their statistical significance reported in the reviewed studies.
Type of Physiological MeasuresDrivingNuclear PowerAviationDomain-FreeNot SpecifiedTotal
NTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsig
Cardiovascular measures343047529669274132896318714244
Eye movement measures7611711644251910911192896029
EEG measures6511102720727161124204856223
Respiration measures2110001147752220221210
Skin measures330000101220110761
EMG measures000000110211000321
Neuroendocrine measures0000006604220001082
Total52457251781861256193672547389403292110
NTotal, the total number of times that the measures were reported in the reviewed studies. NSig, the number of times that the measures were reported with statistical significance in relation to mental workload in the reviewed studies, NNsig, the number of times that the measures were reported with no statistical significance in relation to mental workload in the reviewed studies.
Table
Table 4. Summary of cardiovascular measures and their statistical significance reported in the reviewed studies.
Table 4. Summary of cardiovascular measures and their statistical significance reported in the reviewed studies.
MeasuresDrivingNuclear PowerAviationDomain-FreeNot SpecifiedTotal
NTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsig
ECG measures
Heart rate43111021129761330362511
Frequency-domain HRV
High frequency110 1174642 18126
Mid frequency110 128421121117116
LF/HF ratio21121155065110116124
Low frequency110 312220 642
Very low frequency110 110 220
HRVTRI 220 220
Total power 110 110 220
WPAband 2110 110
WPAband 4110 110
Time-domain HRV
Interbeat interval211 119231232119136
pNN50110 853211 1174
SDNN220110761 1091
RMSSD220 431321 972
NN50 211 21
TINN110 110
SaEn110 110
ApEn110 110
SD1/SD2110 110
T-wave amplitude220 220
T-wave width110 110
T-wave symmetry110 110
T-wave kurtosis110 110
ST-segment amplitude110 110
SDSD110 110
NNMin 110 110
NNMax 110 110
PNN20110 110
P-wave amplitude110 110
Other cardiovascular measures
Systolic blood pressure 110330440 880
Diastolic blood pressure 101220330 651
Blood oxygenation110 110110 330
Mean arterial pressure 110110 220
Blood flow velocity101 101
Table
Table 5. Summary of eye movement measures and their statistical significance reported in the reviewed studies.
Table 5. Summary of eye movement measures and their statistical significance reported in the reviewed studies.
MeasuresDrivingNuclear PowerAviationDomain-FreeNot SpecifiedTotal
NTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsig
Blink rate11055084422010117125
Pupil diameter22042232133022014113
Blink duration1012116422111101275
Fixation duration2202113121103301183
Saccade velocity 431 321752
Fixation rate 312211 110633
Saccade rate 110413 523
Saccadic amplitude 532 532
Blink amplitude 321110 431
Blink interval 321 321
Fixation spread110 110 220
Saccade duration 211 211
Dwell time 110 110
Table
Table 6. Summary of EEG measures and their statistical significance reported in the reviewed studies.
Table 6. Summary of EEG measures and their statistical significance reported in the reviewed studies.
MeasuresDrivingNuclear PowerAviationDomain-FreeNot SpecifiedTotal
NTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsig
Frequency-domain
α power101 74364243118117
θ power110 65164243117134
β power220 4223124311385
δ power 330211110651
γ power 110211110431
α/θ 220110 330
θ/β 101 101
β/(α+θ) 110110
(β+γ)/(α+θ) 110 110
Time-domain (ERP)
P300 110 330440
N100110 110211431
P2 202220422
P3a110 110211 431
N200 110110
Late positive potential amplitude 110110220
P3b 110 110
Mismatch negativity 110 110
Table
Table 7. Summary of respiration, skin, EMG and neuroendocrine measures and their statistical significance reported in the reviewed studies.
Table 7. Summary of respiration, skin, EMG and neuroendocrine measures and their statistical significance reported in the reviewed studies.
MeasuresDrivingNuclear PowerAviationDomain-FreeNot SpecifiedTotal
NTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsigNTotalNSigNNsig
Respiration
Respiration rate211 72565122017107
Respiration amplitude 422101 523
Skin
Skin conductance330 101220110761
EMG
EMG amplitude 110211 321
Neuroendocrine
Plasma cortisol 110 110
Adrenaline excretion 110 110
Dopamine 101 101
Noradrenaline 101 101
Salivary cortisol concentration 110 110
Plasma adrenocorticotropic hormone 110 110
Beta-endorphin 110 110
Plasma prolactin 110 110
Plasma noradrenaline 110 110
Plasma adrenaline 110 110

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tao, D.; Tan, H.; Wang, H.; Zhang, X.; Qu, X.; Zhang, T. A Systematic Review of Physiological Measures of Mental Workload. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2716. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152716

AMA Style

Tao D, Tan H, Wang H, Zhang X, Qu X, Zhang T. A Systematic Review of Physiological Measures of Mental Workload. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(15):2716. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152716

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tao, Da, Haibo Tan, Hailiang Wang, Xu Zhang, Xingda Qu, and Tingru Zhang. 2019. "A Systematic Review of Physiological Measures of Mental Workload" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 15: 2716. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152716

APA Style

Tao, D., Tan, H., Wang, H., Zhang, X., Qu, X., & Zhang, T. (2019). A Systematic Review of Physiological Measures of Mental Workload. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(15), 2716. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152716

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop