INTRODUCTION: Environmental and operational stressors commonly encountered in spaceflight can affect astronaut cognitive performance. It is currently unclear how performance decrements on test batteries that assess individual cognitive domains translate to complex operational performance. METHODS: N 30 healthy adults (mean SD age 33.5 7.1 yr, range 2548 yr; 16 men) with demographic characteristics similar to astronauts performed all 10 tests of the Cognition test battery as well as a simulated 6 degrees-of-freedom (6df) spacecraft docking task 15 times. Performance on 60 Cognition outcome variables was rank-correlated with 6df docking performance individually as well as in models containing up to 12 predictors after accounting for sex, age, and study design effects. RESULTS: Average response time on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST)a measure of processing speed requiring complex scanning, visual tracking, and working memorywas the best individual predictor of 6df docking performance (unadjusted r 0.550; semipartial cross-validated R² 0.244). Furthermore, higher levels of spatial orientation efficiency and vigilant attention, lower levels of impulsivity, and faster response speed were associated with higher 6df performance, while sensorimotor speed, memory, and risk decision making were less relevant. After semipartial cross-validation, a model with three Cognition outcomes (DSST average response time, Abstract Matching accuracy, and conservative response bias on the Fractal 2-Back test) explained 30% of the variance in 6df performance. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates direct links between performance on tests designed to assess specific cognitive domains and complex operational docking performance.Basner M, Moore TM, Hermosillo E, Nasrini J, Dinges DF, Gur RC, Johannes B. Cognition test battery performance is associated with simulated 6df spacecraft docking performance. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2020; 91(11):861867.
INTRODUCTION: Environmental and operational stressors commonly encountered in spaceflight can affect astronaut cognitive performance. It is currently unclear how performance decrements on test batteries that assess individual cognitive domains translate to complex operational performance. METHODS: N 30 healthy adults (mean SD age 33.5 7.1 yr, range 2548 yr; 16 men) with demographic characteristics similar to astronauts performed all 10 tests of the Cognition test battery as well as a simulated 6 degrees-of-freedom (6df) spacecraft docking task 15 times. Performance on 60 Cognition outcome variables was rank-correlated with 6df docking performance individually as well as in models containing up to 12 predictors after accounting for sex, age, and study design effects. RESULTS: Average response time on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST)a measure of processing speed requiring complex scanning, visual tracking, and working memorywas the best individual predictor of 6df docking performance (unadjusted r 0.550; semipartial cross-validated R² 0.244). Furthermore, higher levels of spatial orientation efficiency and vigilant attention, lower levels of impulsivity, and faster response speed were associated with higher 6df performance, while sensorimotor speed, memory, and risk decision making were less relevant. After semipartial cross-validation, a model with three Cognition outcomes (DSST average response time, Abstract Matching accuracy, and conservative response bias on the Fractal 2-Back test) explained 30% of the variance in 6df performance. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates direct links between performance on tests designed to assess specific cognitive domains and complex operational docking performance.Basner M, Moore TM, Hermosillo E, Nasrini J, Dinges DF, Gur RC, Johannes B. Cognition test battery performance is associated with simulated 6df spacecraft docking performance. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2020; 91(11):861867.
Authors: R C Gur; J D Ragland; P J Moberg; T H Turner; W B Bilker; C Kohler; S J Siegel; R E Gur Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Mathias Basner; Jad Nasrini; Emanuel Hermosillo; Sarah McGuire; David F Dinges; Tyler M Moore; Ruben C Gur; Jörn Rittweger; Edwin Mulder; Martin Wittkowski; Dorit Donoviel; Brian Stevens; Eric M Bershad Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2017-12-14
Authors: David R Roalf; Kosha Ruparel; Raquel E Gur; Warren Bilker; Raphael Gerraty; Mark A Elliott; R Sean Gallagher; Laura Almasy; Michael F Pogue-Geile; Konasale Prasad; Joel Wood; Vishwajit L Nimgaonkar; Ruben C Gur Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2013-12-23 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Mathias Basner; Adam Savitt; Tyler M Moore; Allison M Port; Sarah McGuire; Adrian J Ecker; Jad Nasrini; Daniel J Mollicone; Christopher M Mott; Thom McCann; David F Dinges; Ruben C Gur Journal: Aerosp Med Hum Perform Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 1.053
Authors: Mathias Basner; David F Dinges; Kia Howard; Tyler M Moore; Ruben C Gur; Christian Mühl; Alexander C Stahn Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Rachael D Seidler; Claudia Stern; Mathias Basner; Alexander C Stahn; Floris L Wuyts; Peter Zu Eulenburg Journal: Front Neural Circuits Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 3.342