Summary of the key features of seven biomathematical models of human fatigue and performance

Survey of seven models at the June 2002 Fatigue and Performance Modeling Workshop (Seattle): Two-Process, Sleep/Wake Predictor (three-process), SAFE, Interactive Neurobehavioral Model, FAID, CAS and SAFTE. Four models used work time as their sole input; three used sleep timing. Three were proprietary.

• Form factor: software (sleep/schedule input; wrist actigraphy optional)

BackgroundBiomathematical models that quantify the effects of circadian and sleep/wake processes on the regulation of alertness and performance have been developed in an effort to predict the magnitude and timing of fatigue-related responses in a variety of contexts (e.g., transmeridian travel, sustained operations, shift work). This paper summarizes key features of seven biomathematical models reviewed as part of the Fatigue and Performance Modeling Workshop held in Seattle, WA, on June 13-14, 2002. The Workshop was jointly sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Office of Naval Research, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, and U.S. Department of Transportation.MethodsAn invitation was sent to developers of seven biomathematical models that were commonly cited in scientific literature and/or supported by government funding. On acceptance of the invitation to attend the Workshop, developers were asked to complete a survey of the goals, capabilities, inputs, and outputs of their biomathematical models of alertness and performance. Data from the completed surveys were summarized and juxtaposed to provide a framework for comparing features of the seven models.ResultsSurvey responses revealed that models varied greatly relative to their reported goals and capabilities. While all modelers reported that circadian factors were key components of their capabilities, they differed markedly with regard to the roles of sleep and work times as input factors for prediction: four of the seven models had work time as their sole input variable(s), while the other three models relied on various aspects of sleep timing for model input. Models also differed relative to outputs: five sought to predict results from laboratory experiments, field, and operational data, while two models were developed without regard to predicting laboratory experimental results. All modelers provided published papers describing their models, with three of the models being proprietary.ConclusionsAlthough all models appear to have been fundamentally influenced by the two-process model of sleep regulation by Borbély, there is considerable diversity among them in the number and type of input and output variables, and their stated goals and capabilities.

Verbatim from Europe PMC (opens in a new tab) · Abstract via Europe PMC; © the authors/publisher

No results from this paper on ChatPPG leaderboards yet. Browse the leaderboards.