Received: 7 September 2018 | Revised: 15 October 2019 | Accepted: 6 December 2019

DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20831

Assessment and monitoring of mental workload in subway

train operations using physiological, subjective, and
performance measures

Mohammad‐Javad Jafari1 | Farid Zaeri2 | Amir H. Jafari3 |

Amir T. Payandeh Najafabadi4 | Saif Al‐Qaisi5 | Narmin Hassanzadeh‐Rangi6

1
Safety Promotion and Injury Prevention
Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University Abstract
of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Subway train operation is a complex, sociotechnical system that involves a variety of
2
Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of
cognitively demanding tasks. The train operators are responsible for continuously
Paramedicine, Shahid Beheshti University of
Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran monitoring the surrounding environment, maintaining awareness, processing
3
Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering information, and making decisions under risk. The resulting mental strain on
Department, School of Medicine, Tehran
University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran operators can negatively affect their performance and the interaction of the
4
Department of Mathematical Sciences, human–machine system. The objective of this study was to evaluate if physiological,
Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
subjective, and performance measures could identify the level of mental workloads
5
Department of Industrial Engineering and
Management, American University of Beirut
arising from routine and nonroutine operations in the subway system. A total of
(AUB), Beirut, Lebanon 11 subway train operators underwent different driving scenarios in a high‐fidelity
6
Department of Occupational Health and simulator. The simulated tasks were divided into two categories: routine operations
Safety Engineering, School of Public Health
and Safety, Student Research Committee, (preparing to drive and driving between stations without interruptions or
Shahid Beheshti University of Medical emergencies) and nonroutine operation (responding to a tunnel fire, dealing with a
Sciences, Tehran, Iran
high density of passengers, encountering a passenger/technician on the track, and
Correspondence responding to train failure). The mental workload was monitored and evaluated in
Narmin Hassanzadeh‐Rangi, Department of
Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, these tasks using an electrocardiogram, subjective self‐rating scales, and driving
School of Public Health and Safety, Student performance. Both heart rate variability and performance measures (including
Research Committee, Shahid Beheshti
University of Medical Sciences, 7th Floor, Bldg reaction time and error rate) detected mental workload variations in the different
No. 2, SBUMS, Arabi Ave, Daneshjoo Blvd, operations. On the other hand, the subjective ratings (including NASA‐TLX) assessed
Velenjak, Tehran 19839‐63113, Iran.
Email: narminhassanzadeh@sbmu.ac.ir the overall mental workload associated with a task, without explaining the mental
demand variations within the task over time. Subway train drivers experienced
different levels of mental workload during routine and nonroutine driving conditions.
The findings of this study can be used to extract mental workload limits to optimize
workload levels during train operations.

KEYWORDS
mental workload, physiological feedback, simulator, subjective measure, subway

1 | INTRODUCTION Hernández‐Fernaud, & Díaz‐Cabrera, 2010; Tripathi & Borrion,

2016; Zoer, Sluiter, & Frings‐Dresen, 2014). They are especially
More studies focusing on human factors and safety in the railway desired in underdeveloped systems such as subway networks (Zhao,
industry have been demanded (Kecklund et al., 2000; Rolo, Tang, & Ning, 2017). Previous qualitative studies on subway systems

Hum. Factors Man. 2019;1–11. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hfm © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 1

2 |
have mostly focused on technological features and less on the
human interactions with the system (Hassanzadeh‐Rangi, Khosravi,
Farshad, & Jalilian, 2017; Karvonen et al., 2011; Khossravi,
Hassanzadeh‐Rangi, & Farshad, 2017). Train drivers are involved in
many hidden tasks beyond obvious tasks (Karvonen et al., 2011).
They do not only conduct the train on the track and control its
doors at stations, but they monitor the surrounding environment,
communicate with traffic controllers, and interact with different
actors of the subway system (Khossravi et al., 2017). During routine
train operations, the driver adopts a passive role in safely driving the
train between stations. In this operation, the automatic train
protection (ATP) system controls the speed level, the safe distance
between two trains, and where and when the doors should open or
close. During nonroutine train operations, the ATP system is off and
the driver is fully responsible for safely driving the train between
stations (Hassanzadeh‐Rangi et al., 2017).
Several qualitative studies have shown that train driving may
consist of a series of visual, communication, decision, and action tasks
in a dynamic environment (Hassanzadeh‐Rangi et al., 2017; Karvonen
et al., 2011; Khossravi et al., 2017). Train drivers work in a dynamic
context, including continuous monitoring of the surrounding envir-
onment, maintaining awareness, cognitive processing, and on‐time
decision making (Khossravi et al., 2017). Train drivers acquire
information from many sources—such as the trip schedule, rulebook,
ATP system, track‐side environment, warning signals and, signs—to
provide a safe and reliable operation (Karvonen et al., 2011). Train
drivers can have many errors in implementing safe procedures under
high workload conditions (Abd Rahman & Md Dawal, 2016;
Tripathi & Borrion, 2016). Therefore, human–machine interaction
(HMI) must be carefully investigated for the safety of the operator
and passengers in the subway.
The level of mental workload is one of the primary factors affecting
HMIs including observing and obeying signaling indications and train
warning systems, obeying speed limits and other ATP orders, continuous
monitoring of the surrounding environment, cognitive processing, and on‐
time decision making (Hassanzadeh‐Rangi et al., 2017; Karvonen et al.,
2011; Khossravi et al., 2017). Mental workload is complex and
multidimensional, and it is a function of task load, external provisions,
and past skills (Young & Stanton, 2005). Psychophysiological feedbacks,
subjective self‐rating scales, and task performances are among the basic
methods for assessing mental workload (Cain, 2007; Young, Brookhuis,
Wickens, & Hancock, 2015).
NASA‐task load index (NASA‐TLX), the subjective workload
assessment technique, and the modified Cooper–Harper (MCH) are
examples of well‐established subjective self‐rating scales. In these
methods, operators can rate work‐demands themselves on a
numerical or graphical scale (Young et al., 2015). The subjective
self‐rating scales are highly recommended for assessment of modern
mental tasks involving judgment and decision making but are not
strongly recommended for assessment of physical tasks involving
repetitive or highly learned activities (Cain, 2007).
Physiological measures are objective measures for assessing
mental workload. For example, as mental workload increases, heart
JAFARI ET AL.
rate (HR) increases and heart rate variability (HRV) decreases
(Mansikka, Simola, Virtanen, Harris, & Oksama, 2016). HR and HRV
require less sophisticated instruments and have shown to be
sensitive measures of mental workload in simulated environments
(Brookhuis & de Waard, 2010; Mansikka et al., 2016). However,
these methods often require the attachment of physical sensors to
the participant. For this reason, HR and HRV are not widely used in
practical fields (Chuang, Lin, Shiang, Hsieh, & Liou, 2016).
Performance measures attempt to assess the operator’s perfor-
mance on the task of interest. These measures are useful when the
job demands exceed the operator’s capacity. Many indices, such as
reaction times and error rates, can be used to measure
task performance. For example, as mental workload increases,
the reaction time and probability of error increases (Schaap,
Van Der Horst, Van Arem, & Brookhuis, 2008). There are many
critiques about task performance measures. Although they serve as a
good measure of mental workload, they alone may not suffice to
assess the mental state and capacity of operators during work
overload (Wilson, 2005).
A combination of physiological and subjective measures has been
recommended as measures that reflect mental workload in main-
taining task performance (Ryu & Myung, 2005). In other words, a
combination of psychophysiological feedbacks, subjective scales, and
task performances provides different perspectives and complement
one another in the assessment of mental workload.
Although mental workload measurement has been studied for
more than 30 years, past studies on train operation have mostly
focused on subjective scales and less on the combination of
physiological feedbacks, subjective scales, and task performances
(Pickup et al., 2005). On the other hand, previous studies have shown
that ambient parameters, including noise, illumination, and tempera-
ture, affect workload levels (Rolo et al., 2010; Varjo et al., 2015); as
confounders that should be considered during an experimental study.
Some past studies have investigated the reliability of using a
combined approach to assess mental workload for computerized
tasks and simulated conditions in other domains (Cegarra &
Chevalier, 2008; Luque‐Casado, Perales, Cárdenas, & Sanabria,
2016; Wanyan, Zhuang, & Zhang, 2014). Luque‐Casado et al.
(2016) investigated HRV as a function of cognitive demands (based
on the NASA‐TLX ratings) in several computerized tasks. They
suggested that HRV is highly sensitive to the overall demands of
sustained attention over and above the influence of other cognitive
processes suggested by previous literature. Also, their findings
highlighted a potential dissociation between objective and subjective
measures of mental workload, with important implications in applied
settings (Luque‐Casado et al., 2016). Cegarra and Chevalier (2008)
investigated the reliability of using multiple measures of mental
workload in a puzzle‐solving experiment. The results indicate the
importance of combining multiple measures to build upon the
theoretical and methodological foundations of mental workload
(Cegarra & Chevalier, 2008). Wanyan et al. (2014) investigated
behavioral performance, subjective assessment based on the NASA‐
TLX, as well as physiological measures indexed by electrocardiograph
JAFARI ET AL.
(ECG), event‐related potential, and eye‐tracking data in a flight
simulation. They suggested that their findings can be applied to the
comprehensive evaluation of mental workload during flight tasks and
the further quantitative classification (Wanyan et al., 2014).
However, the reliability of using a combined approach in real and
new operations such as subway train operation is yet unclear. There
is a need for research to assess the mental workload of train drivers
using physiological, subjective, and performance measures in subway
operation under a more controlled condition. Therefore, this study
aimed to assess the mental workload associated with routine and
nonroutine subway train operations using physiological, subjective,
and performance measures. Finally, the objective of this study was to
evaluate if physiological, subjective, and performance measures could
identify the level of mental workloads arising from routine and
nonroutine operations in the subway system.
2 | METHODS
2.1 | Participants
The participants were train drivers from the Tehran subway system.
The participants were systematically selected from the train driver
population. The focus of this study was on the routine and
nonroutine conditions of subway operations and its effects on
workload. We decided to control the effect of other individual
differences on workload between and within individuals. According
to Wiberg, Nilsson, Lindén, Svanberg, and Poom (2015), the following
two rules were applied to minimize the variation between and within
individuals. First, to minimize the variation between individuals, the
following inclusion criteria were required: age range of 25–45 years;
driving experience range of 1–5 years; body mass index (BMI)
between 20 and 25; physically and mentally healthy; drug‐free; and
nonsmokers. Second, to minimize physiological variation within each
individual, participants were instructed to satisfy the following
conditions before each experimental task: no caffeine consumption
6 hr before each test; no blood donation within the latest 2 weeks; no
exercising on the same day; no alcohol consumption during the last
24 hr; and at least three succeeding nights of good sleep before the
experiment (Wiberg et al., 2015). A demographic form (including age,
driving experience, shift work, education level, smoking, night sleep,
second job, and other inclusion/exclusion criteria) was used to collect
background information of the participants. Since all drivers working
in the Tehran subway system are male, 12 healthy male subway train
drivers volunteered to participate in this experimental study. Usually,
the number of participants in the same experimental studies have
been from 9 to 20 subjects (Dorrian, Roach, Fletcher, & Dawson,
2006; Jay, Dawson, Ferguson, & Lamond, 2008; Käthner,
Wriessnegger, Müller‐Putz, Kübler, & Halder, 2014; Lamond,
Darwent, & Dawson, 2005; Miller, Rietschel, McDonald, & Hatfield,
2011; Wei, Zhuang, Wanyan, Liu, & Zhuang, 2014). One of the
participants was excluded due to drug consumption and poor
detection of electrophysiological signals. The final 11 participants
| 3
(with an age range of 25–42 and a mean [SD] of 33 years [1.44 years])
read and signed a consent form before the experiment. The
environmental parameters in the simulated cabin were maintained
to the same conditions of the real cabin. The experimental procedure
was approved by the University’s Research Ethics Committee (Ethics
number: IR.SBMU.PHNS.REC.1395.105).
2.2 | Mental workload measurement
2.2.1 | Physiological measures
The HR and HRV parameters were recorded to evaluate the mental
workload of each experimental task (Fallahi, Motamedzade,
Heidarimoghadam, Soltanian, & Miyake, 2016; Mansikka et al.,
2016; Ryu & Myung, 2005). A 7‐lead ECG was used to continuously
monitor and record HR and HRV. ECG has been widely used to
assess mental workload mainly because it reflects the functionality of
the autonomous nervous system (J. Zhang, Yin, & Wang, 2015). Ag/
AgCl electrodes were attached to the drivers’ chests to record ECG.
The data were continuously recorded during the experimental tasks
with a Holter‐ECG (Beneware CT‐08 model) supported by Biotrace+
software (CardioTrack Holter System; version 1.4.1.5).
2.2.2 | Subjective measures
The NASA‐TLX as a subjective self‐rating scale was administered
(Hart & Staveland, 1988). The NASA‐TLX contains six dimensions,
which are mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand,
performance, effort, and frustration. It is scored from a low of 0 to a
high of 100 in each dimension. The weighting procedure to combine
the six dimensions into an overall score is described by Hart and
Staveland (1988) and Rubio et al. (2004). Each driver was also asked
to mark the ASHRAE 7‐point scale (Y. Zhang & Zhao, 2008), the
5‐point subjective loudness rating scale (Williams, Beach, & Gilliver,
2013), and the 5‐point visual comfort scale (Mui & Wong, 2006) to
describe their feelings about the surrounding environment during
each trip.
2.2.3 | Performance measures
Task performance measures were used for the assessment of each
driver’s performance using reaction times and error rates. The task
performance involved maintaining the train on the track, controlling
its doors, and performing other driving tasks, such as visual
monitoring, communication, recalling information, on‐time decision
making, and reacting to an emergency. The train driving task
performance was rated between 0 (worst performance) and 100
(best performance) based on an official checklist rating scale and the
output report from the train simulator. The task performance was
rated by a qualified train simulator instructor. The simulator
4 | JAFARI ET AL.

instructors or examiners in the Tehran subway training center
routinely evaluate train driver’s performance to issue driving
certificates on subway lines. This type of performance measurement
has been applied by Mansikka et al. (2016) for a similar objective.
2.3 | Subway train simulator
The Corys Metro Train Simulator (CMTS) was used for the
experimental driving tasks in this study. The CMTS is a full‐motion,
high‐fidelity train simulator with a fully functional AC500 train cabin.
The CMTS replicates subway train driving with high accuracy for
both routine and nonroutine operations in Tehran subway lines 1 and
2. The simulated task is based on actual track data and video for lines
1 and 2. A simulator instructor monitored and controlled all the
driving operations in a control room. The CMTS is used for basic and
advanced training and also for driving license examination in the
Tehran subway system.
2.4 | Study design and procedure
The experimental route was a part of the Tehran subway system line
1 (39 km, 20 min). Both routine and nonroutine operations were
presented to the participants. The routine and nonroutine scenarios
were designed according to the train operation rulebooks and the
findings of mental workload extracted from several past pilots and
independent studies (Hassanzadeh‐Rangi et al., 2017; Khossravi
et al., 2017). The scenarios are presented in detail in Table 1. To
avoid learning effects, the routine and nonroutine conditions were
counterbalanced across the participants. All train drivers were
familiar with the experimental tasks, but none of them had driving
experience, specifically on Tehran subway line 1. The rationale
behind this selection was that the experimental route is interesting
and demanding enough to induce mental effort from participants.
The environmental parameters in the simulated cabin were main-
tained to the same conditions of the real cabin. The illumination level
(in Lux), the wet bulb globe temperature (in °C), and the noise level
(in dBA) were measured to ensure that these parameters were
consistent between the real and simulated environment.
The drivers were asked to sit in the simulator chair for 15 min to
adapt to the ECG apparatus and to record baseline data. The last
5‐minute rest period was used to record the resting baseline ECG.
They also completed the demographic form. To reduce possible
artifacts that could influence the HRV analysis, the drivers were
asked to avoid severe body movement during the experimental tasks.
The participants drove the train along the proposed paths as ECG
data were recorded simultaneously. The subjective rating scales were
completed by the drivers after each 10‐min driving period. Each
driving scenario was separated by a 10‐min rest period. During the
rest period, the simulator was manipulated for the next scenario. To
minimize the learning effect, the order presentation of the

T A B L E 1 The experimental tasks in both routine and nonroutine scenarios

Scenario

Task/Condition Train driver’s required action Routine Nonroutine

Preparing to drive
Driving between stations without
interruptions or emergencies
Driving between stations with an emergency
situation (responding to a tunnel fire)
Dealing with a high density of passengers
Encountering a passenger/technician on the
track
Responding to train failure
Abbreviation: ATP, automatic train protection
Changing the train’s direction; completing the train dispatching procedure, √ √
including train activation, train safety activation, and check‐up; observing
and obeying signaling indications and train warning systems.
Driving the train along the track; obeying speed limits and other ATP √ √
orders; monitoring the surrounding environment; observing and obeying
signaling indications and train warning systems; stopping the train at a
specific area in the stations; opening and closing train doors; entering and
leaving stations within the speed limit.
Driving the train along the track; obeying speed limits and other ATP √
orders; monitoring the surrounding environment; observing and obeying
signaling indications and train warning systems; quickly diagnosing the
emergency situation; proper response to the emergency, such as stopping
at a safe distance and reporting the emergency; stopping the train at a
specific area in the stations; opening and closing train doors; entering and
leaving stations within the speed limit.
Driving the train along the track; monitoring the surrounding environment; √
fixing the opened or not completely closed door; proper communication
with the control room and passengers.
Driving the train along the track; monitoring the surrounding environment; √
proper response to the emergency situation, such as stopping at a safe
distance and reporting the emergency.
Reporting an ATP fault to the control room; isolating the ATP; driving the √
train with the isolated ATP; obeying speed limits; activating the ATP;
proper communication with an assistant driver in the rear cabin.
JAFARI ET AL.
experimental trials was randomized among the participants using the
Latin square method (Lan, Lian, & Pan, 2010). The simulator
instructors evaluated the driver’s performance based on their task
measures (such as reaction time and error rate). To increase the
sense of originality of the driving task, the drivers were allowed to
follow self‐selected techniques and problem‐solving approaches.
2.5 | Data processing and analysis
For each participant, the last 5‐minute baseline period and two
10‐min segments (for the routine and nonroutine driving scenarios)
of the ECG records were extracted for further analysis. Usually, the
duration of ECG records in the same experimental studies has been
from 3 to 5 min (Fallahi et al., 2016; Mansikka et al., 2016). All
artifacts and noise in the data were detected and removed
automatically by the CardioTrack Holter System before beginning
the data analysis. The ECG data were interpreted by the guidelines of
the Task Force of The European Society of Cardiology and The North
American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology (1996). An internal
medicine physician verified the results of the ECG data. The HR/HRV
components were analyzed in both time and frequency domains. The
time‐domain parameters included the mean value of the HR (mean
HR), the mean value of the RR intervals (mean RR), the standard
deviation of the RR intervals (SDNN), the average standard
deviations of the RR intervals for each 5‐min interval (SDNNIDX),
the root mean square of the successive difference of the RR intervals
(RMSSD), the percentage of successive RR intervals that varied more
than 50 ms from the previous interval (pNN50). The frequency‐
domain parameter of HRV was the ratio of the LF over the HF
(LF/HF) (Fallahi et al., 2016). Since there are significant differences in
individuals’ cardiac and subjective responses to different task
demands (Mansikka et al., 2016), the physiological and subjective
measurements were compared within each participant rather than
between participants. The Friedman test was used to compare the
HR and HRV parameters during the baseline, routine, and nonroutine
operations. The pairwise comparison of differences between the HR
and HRV parameters during the baseline, routine, and nonroutine
operations were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed‐rank test.
Subjective and performance measurements were normalized due
to within and between individual variations (Wiberg et al., 2015). The
differences between the participants’ subjective responses during
routine and nonroutine operations for each NASA‐TLX scale and the
overall NASA‐TLX score were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed‐
rank test. The performance scores were also analyzed using the
Wilcoxon signed‐rank test to examine differences during routine and
nonroutine operations. The Mann–Whitney test was carried out to
compare the environmental parameters between the simulated and
real cabins. Nonparametric or distribution‐free tests were used
because of the small numbers of participants and the data were not
normal (Aprahamian, Martinelli, Neri, & Yassuda, 2010; Javorka,
Javorková, Tonhajzerová, Calkovska, & Javorka, 2005). The data
were analyzed using IBM SPSS (version 21; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).
| 5
GraphPad Prism (version 5; GraphPad, San Diego) was utilized to test
for significant differences in the physiological and subjective
variables between the routine and nonroutine operations. The α
level was .05 in this study.
3 | RESULTS
The pairwise comparisons of the environmental parameters showed no
significant difference between the simulated and real cabins, in terms of
the illumination level (62.70 ± 23.94 and 69.70 ± 9.42 in Lux; p = .52), the
wet‐bulb globe temperature (19.50 ± 2.12 and 20.50 ± 2.12 in °C; p = .66),
and the noise level (25.75 ± 5.67 and 26.0 ± 6.0 in dBA; p = .68).
Table 2 presents the mean values, including the standard deviation of
the physiological parameters in the baseline, routine, and nonroutine
conditions. The results revealed significant differences for the means of
the HR/HRV parameters (p < .001) among the baseline, routine, and
nonroutine operations, except for the mean RR (p = .103).
The results showed that there was a significant difference for the
mean HR between baseline condition and routine operation (p = .004).
However, a significant difference was not observed between routine
operation and nonroutine operation (p = .298). The results indicated that
there was not a significant difference for the mean RR among the
baseline, routine operation, and nonroutine operation (p = .103). The
results showed that significant differences for the mean RR were not
observed between baseline condition and routine operation (p = .373),
and routine operation and nonroutine operation (p = .266). The results
indicated that there was a significant difference for the SDNN between
baseline condition and routine operation (p = .003), and routine operation
and nonroutine operation (p = .005). The results showed that there was a
significant difference for the SDNNIX between baseline condition and
routine operation (p = .003), and routine operation and nonroutine
operation (p = .014). The results indicated that there was a significant
difference for the RMSSD between baseline condition and routine
operation (p = .002), and routine operation and nonroutine operation
(p = .005). The results indicated that there was a significant difference for
the PNN50 between baseline condition and routine operation (p = .003),
and routine operation and nonroutine operation (p = .013). The results
showed that there was a significant difference for the LF/HF ratio
between routine operation and nonroutine operation (p = .041) and the
reduction in the LF/HF ratio was not significant between baseline
condition and routine operation (p = .051).
The changes in the physiological parameters between the
proposed operations are plotted in Figure 1. The results showed
that most parameters related to HRV (including the SDNN, SDNNIX,
RMSSD, and PNN50 parameters) were lower significantly in the
nonroutine operation than in the routine operation; but there was a
nonsignificant reduction in the mean RR in the nonroutine operation
than in the routine operation. The results indicated that the LF/HF
ratio HR was significantly higher in the nonroutine operation than in
the routine operation.
The subjective rating results for the routine and nonroutine
conditions are summarized in Table 3. The weighted NASA‐TLX score
6 | JAFARI ET AL.

and the scores in each dimension (mental demand, physical demand,

temporal demand, performance level, effort level, and frustration
level) were higher during the nonroutine operation than in the
RO×NOb
(p‐value)
routine operation. The results indicated that there was a significant
difference in the mental demand dimension (p = .01) between the
.298
.266
.005
.014
.005
.013
.041
routine operation and nonroutine operation. However, there were no
significant differences in physical demand, temporal demand,
performance level, effort level, frustration level, and weighted
workload between the routine operation and nonroutine operation.
(p‐value)
BC×ROb

The task performance (including reaction time and error rate)

.004
.373
.003
.003
.002
.003
.051 was lower during the nonroutine operation (69.09 ± 6.64) rather than
the routine operation (95.45 ± 4.71). The results indicated that there
was a significant difference in task performance between the routine
operation and nonroutine operation (p < .001).
Abbreviations: HR, heart rate; RMSSD, root mean square of the successive difference of the RR intervals; SDNN, standard deviation of the RR intervals
BC×RO×NOa
(p‐value)

4 | D I S C U SS I O N
.103
<.001

<.001
<.001
<.001
<.001
<.001

Human cognitive abilities and limitations play an important role in

the majority of industrial accidents and driving crashes (Allahyari,
Rangi, Khalkhali, & Khosravi, 2014; Hassanzadeh Rangi, Allahyari,
T A B L E 2 Comparison of physiological variables during the routine and nonroutine operations of the subway driving

Khosravi, Zaeri, & Saremi, 2012; Hassanzadeh‐Rangi, Asghar Farshad,

Nonroutine operation (NO)

Khosravi, Zare, & Mirkazemi, 2014; Khosravi, Asilian‐Mahabadi,

Hajizadeh, Hassanzadeh‐Rangi, & Behzadan, 2014; Khosravi et al.,
2013). There was a need for research to assess the mental workload
664.72 ± 110.94
92.64 ± 16.56

49.18 ± 17.25
49.09 ± 19.42
28.01 ± 15.88
6.01 ± 7.20
4.46 ± 2.36

of train drivers in the subway operation. In the current study, mental

(mean ± SD)

demand was manipulated by varying the difficulty of the task

performed in a high‐fidelity simulator. On the other hand, previous
studies have shown that ambient parameters, including noise,
illumination, and temperature, affect workload levels (Rolo et al.,
2010; Varjo et al., 2015); as confounders that should be considered
during an experimental study. The finding of this study showed that
the simulated cabin was similar to the real cabin in terms of the
Routine operation (RO)

illumination, temperature, and noise levels. This study is one of the

first studies to assess the mental workload of train drivers in subway
671.63 ± 108.27
91.82 ± 16.46

65.54 ± 16.47
64.18 ± 17.05
33.27 ± 15.76
8.45 ± 7.15
3.02 ± 3.01

operation under a controlled environment.

(mean ± SD)

Past studies have emphasized the need to use a combination of

physiological, subjective, and performance measures to assess the
mental effort of users in multitask jobs (Young et al., 2015).
Therefore, in this study, a combination of measures, including HR/
HRV, NASA‐TLX, and task performance, was used to evaluate mental
workload during routine and nonroutine train operations. Since this
Baseline condition (BC)

study was a within‐subject repeated measures design, concerns

related to variations between and within individuals were minimized.
673.45 ± 107.03

The ECG was selected in this study for acquiring physiological

89.00 ± 17.09

78.63 ± 20.55
75.45 ± 20.27
38.90 ± 16.94
10.29 ± 8.37
2.43 ± 3.37
(mean ± SD)

feedbacks because it has a high face validity without generating

intrusion of any kind (Mansikka et al., 2016).
The findings of this study showed that subway train drivers
experienced different levels of the mental workload under routine and
Mean HR (1/min)

nonroutine train operations. Work demand changes among the baseline,

LF/HF ratio (‐)
Mean RR (ms)

Wilcoxon test.
Friedman test.
SDNNIX (ms)
RMSSD (ms)

routine, and nonroutine conditions were detected by the following HRV

PNN50 (%)
SDNN (ms)
Variable

parameters: SDNN, SDNNIX, RMSSD, PNN50, and LF/HF. Also, the

mental demand dimension and the task performance revealed work
demand between the routine and nonroutine operations.
b
a
JAFARI ET AL. | 7

F I G U R E 1 Box plots (mean, SD, Min, and Max) of the routine and nonroutine operations for the physiological parameters: (a) Mean HR, (b)
mean RR, (c) SDNN, (d) SDNNIX, (e) RMSSD, (f) PNN50, and (h) LF/HF. HR, heart rate; RMSSD, root mean square of the successive difference of
the RR intervals; SDNN, standard deviation of the RR intervals

The findings of this study and other qualitative studies (Kecklund
et al., 2000; Smith, Blandford, & Back, 2009) show serious concern
for the effects of nonroutine train operations (without the ATP
system) on driver’s mental workload and performance. Therefore,
new technologies, such as the ATP system, seem to have a necessary
role in the work organization and job design of train operations
(Hassanzadeh‐Rangi et al., 2017; Khossravi et al., 2017). Improper
consideration of these features in job design can lead to complicated
HMI and mishaps. The HMI level and related workload depend on the
level of automation and the role of subway train drivers and other
8 |
T A B L E 3 Comparison of the subjective and performance measures during the routine and nonroutine operations of the subway driving
Variable Routine operation (mean ± SD)
Mental demand (NASA‐TLX) 73.82 ± 28.78
Physical demand (NASA‐TLX) 53.64 ± 24.40
Temporal demand (NASA‐TLX) 69.82 ± 25.75
Performance level (NASA‐TLX) 76.36 ± 20.50
Effort level (NASA‐TLX) 89.18 ± 18.01
Frustration level (NASA‐TLX) 20.91 ± 27.64
Weighted workload (NASA‐TLX) 72.50 ± 18.83
Abbreviation: NASA‐TLX, NASA‐task load index
a
Wilcoxon test.
traffic controllers in the subway system. These findings confirm that
subway train driving is a complex and mentally demanding job.
The current results indicated that increasing the work demand from
nonroutine operations significantly affects the driver’s reaction time and
error rate in task performance. A couple of studies have suggested that
traditional train drivers can have more train accidents and errors in
implementing safe procedures under high workload and alertness
conditions (Abd Rahman & Md Dawal, 2016; Tripathi & Borrion, 2016).
The findings of this study showed that as mental demand
increased during the nonroutine operation, the HRV parameters,
including the SDNN, SDNNIX, RMSSD, and PNN50, decreased
significantly. Also, with the increase in mental workload, the LF/HF
ratio increased significantly. These findings are consistent with
research in the literature and further confirmed that with an increase
in mental demand, the RMSSD, SDNN, and PNN50 parameters
decrease significantly (Cinaz, Arnrich, La Marca, & Tröster, 2013;
Fallahi et al., 2016; Mansikka et al., 2016). In the current study, the
LF/HF ratio was introduced as another sensitive indicator of mental
workload variability. This finding is consistent with past research that
has shown that with an increase in mental demand, the LF/HF ratio
increase significantly (Cinaz et al., 2013). However, there is a study,
which stated that the LF/HF ratio has a limitation in reflecting mental
workload changes. Because the LF/HF ratio is more affected by
respiration fluctuation and sympathetic and parasympathetic sys-
tems (Miyake et al., 2009). This study also showed that increasing
mental demand increases the mean HR and decreases the mean RR.
However, the mean HR and the mean RR were not able to
differentiate the routine operation from the nonroutine operation.
This finding is consistent with the findings of a previous study
(Mukherjee, Yadav, Yung, Zajdel, & Oken, 2011). Mean HR has been
introduced as an indicator of mental workload in other previous
studies (Fallahi et al., 2016; Mansikka et al., 2016). The findings of
previous studies about the mean RR are controversial. Some studies
have shown a significant reduction in the mean RR (Mansikka et al.,
2016; Mukherjee et al., 2011) and others have presented a
nonsignificant reduction (Cinaz et al., 2013). In general, the findings
of this study support that the HR and HRV parameters can reveal
variations in task difficulty of subway train operations.
The comparison of the subjective mental workload in this study
showed that the scores of the overall NASA‐TLX and its dimensions were
JAFARI ET AL.
Nonroutine operation (mean ± SD) p‐valuea
83.36 ± 26.38 .01
59.55 ± 22.18 .44
73.64 ± 22.92 .39
71.82 ± 21.94 .35
93.18 ± 12.30 .59
19.55 ± 26.31 .68
75.04 ± 18.09 .55
higher in the nonroutine operation than in the routine operation;
however, only the mental demand dimension was able to detect a
significant difference between the routine and nonroutine operations.
Past studies showed similar results that the perceived mental workload
(self‐measured by the NASA‐TLX) in the rail industry was not sensitive
enough to mental workload variability (Larue, Rakotonirainy, & Haworth,
2016). Another study conducted in a simulated train concluded that the
NASA‐TLX is only sensitive to changes in task difficulty and not sensitive
to changes in task difficulty over time (Haga, Shinoda, & Kokubun, 2002).
In other studies, the NASA‐TLX and the integrated workload scale
(Pickup et al., 2005) have been used as subjective and retrospective tools
for mental workload assessment in the rail industry. Apparently, the
sensitivity of different aspects of mental workload depends on the type of
operation investigated. In previous studies, for example, mental demand
and performance (measured by the NASA‐TLX) were the most sensitive
dimensions in flight operations (Lee & Liu, 2003). In another study, all of
the dimensions of the NASA‐TLX, with the exception of physical demand,
were sensitive in traffic control operations (Fallahi et al., 2016). Perhaps
some dimensions of the NASA‐TLX are not significantly sensitive to
mental workload variability because they are subjective and they assess
mental workload as a whole, retrospective, and nondynamic concept.
These subjective tools should be used to assess the overall perceived
mental workload and the collective judgment of job demands. These tools
are not suitable for monitoring mental workload and for studies that are
required to register online variability in mental workload.
This study showed that the train driver’s performance reduced
significantly during nonroutine operations than during routine
operations of subway trains. Therefore, the train driver’s perfor-
mance was confirmed as a sensitive measure for changes in mental
demands. A past study has also shown that reaction time and
performance accuracy are sensitive measures of mental workload in
complex operations (Wei et al., 2014). This study showed that the
subjective rating of task performance is a strong candidate when
different levels of the mental workload are being considered for a
train operation environment. In other words, heart rate variability
and task performance were associated with mental workload
variations. The findings of this study can be used to support the
identification of workload limits for train operations.
The results of this study showed that the combination of
measures—including task performance (reaction time and error
JAFARI ET AL.
rate), heart rate (the LF/HF ratio), and heart rate variability
(including the RMSSD, PNN50, SDNN, and SDNNIX parameters)—
can be used to monitor mental workload of HMIs in complex
systems. On the other hand, subjective ratings, measured by the
NASA‐TLX, can be used for the overall assessment of mental
workload and for the collective judgment of job demands. Because
of the multidimensional nature of mental demands, mental work-
load measures should be integrated into a combined measure using
different weight coefficients.
One of the limitations of this study was that we determined
the specific inclusion/exclusion criteria to control the effect of
some individual differences, such as age, driving experience, and
lifestyle, on workload between and within individuals to focus on
the task‐based variables and its effects on workload. Therefore,
future studies are recommended to evaluate the individual
differences and their effects on the mental workload in the
subway operation system. Furthermore, all train drivers working in
the Tehran subway system were men. Therefore, this study did not
address the impact of gender on physiological responses and
mental workload. Future research can investigate the workload of
operators in fields with both men and women. Another limitation
of this study was that operation in the simulator may require less
work demand than the real environment. Although a simulated
environment can be designed to include critical emergency
operations, it will not be managed for the perceived risk of a real
operation such as the risk of a crash, injury, or death (Mansikka
et al., 2016). On the other hand, the real operational environment
is affected by uncontrolled and perhaps unknown factors (Cain,
2007). In this environment, testing of critical emergency opera-
tions with an acceptable safety margin is difficult and almost
impossible. Conversely, the simulated operational environment is
under more experimental control. Advances in simulator technol-
ogies are now providing opportunities for conducting more reliable
research to estimate mental workload in the simulated environ-
ment before real‐world measurements are undertaken (Cain,
2007). However, future studies are also recommended to evaluate
the mental workload in the real subway environment compared
with the simulated environment.
5 | CONC LU SION
A high‐fidelity simulated experimental study was designed to
manipulate and evaluate mental workload during a close to real
operation under a more controlled condition. Train drivers experi-
enced different levels of mental workload during routine and
nonroutine driving operations. The current study showed that
nonroutine train operations (without the ATP system) could have
adverse effects on the train operator driver’s mental workload and
performance. Therefore, new technologies, such as the ATP system,
have a necessary role in performance promotion and accident
prevention in train operations. The findings of this study can be
used to extract mental workload limits based on a combined
approach to optimize workload levels during train operations.
| 9
Both heart rate variability (including the RMSSD, PNN50, SDNN, and
SDNNIX parameters) and performance measures (including reaction time
and error rate) detected mental workload variations in the different
operations. On the other hand, the subjective ratings (including NASA‐
TLX) assessed the overall mental workload associated with a task,
without explaining the mental demand variations within the task. In other
words, subjective measures were more sensitive to overall mental
workload rather than to the dynamic work demand over time. The
findings of this study suggested a combined approach to assess overall
and dynamic mental workload to promote the effectiveness of the mental
workload optimization procedures. The current findings can be applied to
develop a reliable model for the comprehensive evaluation of mental
workload in complex sociotechnical systems.
AC KNO WL EDG M EN TS
The cooperation of the Tehran Metro Company in this study is
greatly appreciated. This study was supported by Shahid Beheshti
University of Medical Sciences.
CON F LI CT OF IN TE RES T S
The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.
ORCI D
Narmin Hassanzadeh‐Rangi http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9885-
8889
R E F E R E N CE S
Abd Rahman, N. I., & Md Dawal, S. Z. (2016). The mental workload and
alertness levels of train drivers under simulated conditions based on
electroencephalogram signals. Malaysian Journal of Public Health
Medicine, 1(sup1), 115–123. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.
url?eid=2‐s2.0‐84957565869&partnerID=40&md5=20e22d12a15efa
239848144a8b2da840
Allahyari, T., Rangi, N. H., Khalkhali, H., & Khosravi, Y. (2014).
Occupational cognitive failures and safety performance in the
workplace. International Journal of Occupational Safety and
Ergonomics, 20(1), 175–180.
Aprahamian, I., Martinelli, J. E., Neri, A. L., & Yassuda, M. S. (2010). The
accuracy of the Clock Drawing Test compared to that of standard
screening tests for Alzheimer's disease: Results from a study of
Brazilian elderly with heterogeneous educational backgrounds.
International Psychogeriatrics, 22(1), 64–71.
Brookhuis, K. A., & de Waard, D. (2010). Monitoring drivers’ mental
workload in driving simulators using physiological measures. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 42(3), 898–903.
Cain, B. (2007). A review of the mental workload literature.
Cegarra, J., & Chevalier, A. (2008). The use of Tholos software for combining
measures of mental workload: Toward theoretical and methodological
improvements. Behavior Research Methods, 40(4), 988–1000.
Chuang, C. Y., Lin, C. J., Shiang, W. J., Hsieh, T. L., & Liou, J. L. (2016).
Development of an objective mental workload assessment tool based
on Rasmussen's skill‐rule‐knowledge framework. Journal of Nuclear
Science and Technology, 53(1), 123–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00223131.2015.1027156
10 | JAFARI
Cinaz, B., Arnrich, B., La Marca, R., & Tröster, G. (2013). Monitoring of
mental workload levels during an everyday life office‐work scenario.
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17(2), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00779‐011‐0466‐1
Dorrian, J., Roach, G. D., Fletcher, A., & Dawson, D. (2006). The effects of
fatigue on train handling during speed restrictions. Transportation
Research Part F: Traffic Psychology Behaviour, 9(4), 243–257.
Fallahi, M., Motamedzade, M., Heidarimoghadam, R., Soltanian, A. R., &
Miyake, S. (2016). Effects of mental workload on physiological and
subjective responses during traffic density monitoring: A field study.
Applied Ergonomics, 52, 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.
2015.07.009
Haga, S., Shinoda, H., & Kokubun, M. (2002). Effects of task difficulty and
time‐on‐task on mental workload. Japanese Psychological Research,
44(3), 134–143.
Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA‐TLX (Task
Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in
Psychology, 52, 139–183.
Hassanzadeh Rangi, N., Allahyari, T., Khosravi, Y., Zaeri, F., & Saremi, M.
(2012). Development of an Occupational Cognitive Failure
Questionnaire (OCFQ): Evaluation validity and reliability. Iran
Occupational Health, 9(1), 29–40.
Hassanzadeh‐Rangi, N., Khosravi, Y., Farshad, A. A., & Jalilian, H. (2017).
Assessment and analysis of physical workload in metro driving job and
recommendation for improvement. Journal of Health and Safety at
Work, 7(1), 33–44. http://jhsw.tums.ac.ir/article‐1‐5588‐en.html
Hassanzadeh‐Rangi, N., Asghar Farshad, A., Khosravi, Y., Zare, G., &
Mirkazemi, R. (2014). Occupational cognitive failure and its
relationship with unsafe behaviors and accidents. International
Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 20(2), 265–271.
Javorka, M., Javorková, J., Tonhajzerová, I., Calkovska, A., & Javorka, K.
(2005). Heart rate variability in young patients with diabetes mellitus
and healthy subjects explored by Poincaré and sequence plots. Clinical
Physiology and Functional Imaging, 25(2), 119–127.
Jay, S. M., Dawson, D., Ferguson, S. A., & Lamond, N. (2008). Driver fatigue
during extended rail operations. Applied Ergonomics, 39(5), 623–629.
Karvonen, H., Aaltonen, I., Wahlström, M., Salo, L., Savioja, P., & Norros, L.
(2011). Hidden roles of the train driver: A challenge for metro
automation. Interacting with Computers, 23(4), 289–298.
Käthner, I., Wriessnegger, S. C., Müller‐Putz, G. R., Kübler, A., & Halder, S.
(2014). Effects of mental workload and fatigue on the P300, alpha and
theta band power during operation of an ERP (P300) brain–computer
interface. Biological Psychology, 102, 118–129.
Kecklund, L., Ingre, M., Kecklund, G., Söderström, M., Åkerstedt, T.,
Lindberg, E., & Almqvist, P. (2000). Railway safety and the train driver
information environment. Advances in Transport, 7, 1047–1056.
Khosravi, Y., Asilian‐Mahabadi, H., Hajizadeh, E., Hassanzadeh‐Rangi, N., &
Behzadan, A. H. (2014). Structural modeling of safety performance in
construction industry. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 43(8),
1099–1106.
Khosravi, Y., Asilian‐Mahabadi, H., Hajizadeh, E., Hassanzadeh‐Rangi, N.,
Bastani, H., Khavanin, A., & Mortazavi, S. B. (2013). Modeling the
factors affecting unsafe behavior in the construction industry from
safety supervisors’ perspective. Journal of Research in Health Sciences,
14(1), 29–35.
Khossravi, Y., Hassanzadeh‐Rangi, N., & Farshad, A. (2017). Task and
hazard analysis of metro drivers and recommendations to
improvement. Iran Occupational Health, 13(6), 46–57.
Lamond, N., Darwent, D., & Dawson, D. (2005). Train drivers’ sleep and
alertness during short relay operations. Applied Ergonomics, 36(3),
313–318.
Lan, L., Lian, Z., & Pan, L. (2010). The effects of air temperature on office
workers’ well‐being, workload and productivity‐evaluated with
subjective ratings. Applied Ergonomics, 42(1), 29–36.
ET AL.
Larue, G. S., Rakotonirainy, A., & Haworth, N. L. (2016). A simulator
evaluation of effects of assistive technologies on driver cognitive load
at railway‐level crossings. Journal of Transportation Safety & Security,
8(sup1), 56–69.
Lee, Y. H., & Liu, B. S. (2003). Inflight workload assessment: Comparison of
subjective and physiological measurements. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine, 74(10), 1078–1084.
Luque‐Casado, A., Perales, J. C., Cárdenas, D., & Sanabria, D. (2016). Heart
rate variability and cognitive processing: The autonomic response to
task demands. Biological Psychology, 113, 83–90.
Mansikka, H., Simola, P., Virtanen, K., Harris, D., & Oksama, L. (2016).
Fighter pilots’ heart rate, heart rate variation and performance during
instrument approaches. Ergonomics, 59(10), 1344–1352.
Miller, M. W., Rietschel, J. C., McDonald, C. G., & Hatfield, B. D. (2011). A
novel approach to the physiological measurement of mental workload.
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 80(1), 75–78.
Miyake, S., Yamada, S., Shoji, T., Takae, Y., Kuge, N., & Yamamura, T.
(2009). Physiological responses to workload change. A test/retest
examination. Applied Ergonomics, 40(6), 987–996.
Mui, K., & Wong, L. (2006). Acceptable illumination levels for office
occupants. Architectural Science Review, 49(2), 116–119.
Mukherjee, S., Yadav, R., Yung, I., Zajdel, D. P., & Oken, B. S. (2011). Sensitivity
to mental effort and test–retest reliability of heart rate variability
measures in healthy seniors. Clinical Neurophysiology, 122(10), 2059–2066.
Pickup, L., Wilson, J. R., Sharpies, S., Norris, B., Clarke, T., & Young, M. S.
(2005). Fundamental examination of mental workload in the rail
industry. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6(6), 463–482.
Rolo, G., Hernández‐Fernaud, E., & Díaz‐Cabrera, D. (2010). Impact of
perceived physical and environmental conditions on mental workload:
An exploratory study in office workers. Psyecology, 1(3), 333–342.
https://doi.org/10.1174/217119710792774861
Rubio, S., Díaz, E., Martín, J., & Puente, J. M. (2004). Evaluation of
subjective mental workload: A comparison of SWAT, NASA‐TLX, and
workload profile methods. Applied Psychology, 53(1), 61–86.
Ryu, K., & Myung, R. (2005). Evaluation of mental workload with a combined
measure based on physiological indices during a dual task of tracking and
mental arithmetic. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35(11),
991–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2005.04.005
Schaap, T., Van Der Horst, A., Van Arem, B., & Brookhuis, K. (2008).
Drivers’ reactions to sudden braking by lead car under varying
workload conditions; towards a driver support system. IET Intelligent
Transport Systems, 2(4), 249–257.
Smith, P., Blandford, A., & Back, J. (2009). Questioning, exploring,
narrating and playing in the control room to maintain system safety.
Cognition, Technology & Work, 11(4), 279–291.
Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and the North
American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology (1996). Heart
rate variability standards of measurement, physiological
interpretation, and clinical use. Eur Heart J, 17, 354–381.
Tripathi, K., & Borrion, H. (2016). Safe, secure or punctual? A simulator study
of train driver response to reports of explosives on a metro train. Security
Journal, 29(1), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2015.46
Varjo, J., Hongisto, V., Haapakangas, A., Maula, H., Koskela, H., & Hyönä, J.
(2015). Simultaneous effects of irrelevant speech, temperature and
ventilation rate on performance and satisfaction in open‐plan offices.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44, 16–33. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jenvp.2015.08.001
Wanyan, X., Zhuang, D., & Zhang, H. (2014). Improving pilot mental
workload evaluation with combined measures. Bio‐Medical Materials
and Engineering, 24(6), 2283–2290.
Wei, Z., Zhuang, D., Wanyan, X., Liu, C., & Zhuang, H. (2014). A model for
discrimination and prediction of mental workload of aircraft cockpit
display interface. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 27(5), 1070–1077.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2014.09.002
JAFARI ET AL.
Wiberg, H., Nilsson, E., Lindén, P., Svanberg, B., & Poom, L. (2015).
Physiological responses related to moderate mental load
during car driving in field conditions. Biological Psychology, 108,
115–125.
Williams, W., Beach, E., & Gilliver, M. (2013). Development of a subjective
loudness rating scale. International Journal of Audiology, 52(9),
650–653.
Wilson, G. F. (2005). Operator functional state assessment for adaptive
automation implementation. Paper presented at the Defense and
Security, 2005, Orlando, FL.
Young, M. S., Brookhuis, K. A., Wickens, C. D., & Hancock, P. A. (2015).
State of science: Mental workload in ergonomics. Ergonomics, 58(1),
1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.956151
Young, M. S., & Stanton, N. A. (2005). Mental workload, Handbook of
Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods, London: Taylor & Francis.
Zhang, J., Yin, Z., & Wang, R. (2015). Recognition of mental workload
levels under complex human‐machine collaboration by using
physiological features and adaptive support vector machines. IEEE
Transactions on Human‐Machine Systems, 45(2), 200–214. https://doi.
org/10.1109/THMS.2014.2366914
| 11
Zhang, Y., & Zhao, R. (2008). Overall thermal sensation, acceptability and
comfort. Building and Environment, 43(1), 44–50.
Zhao, B., Tang, T., & Ning, B. (2017). System dynamics approach for
modelling the variation of organizational factors for risk control in
automatic metro. Safety Science, 94, 128–142.
Zoer, I., Sluiter, J. K., & Frings‐Dresen, M. H. (2014). Psychological work
characteristics, psychological workload and associated psychological
and cognitive requirements of train drivers. Ergonomics, 57(10),
1473–1487.
How to cite this article: Jafari M‐J, Zaeri F, Jafari AH,
Payandeh Najafabadi AT, Al‐Qaisi S, Hassanzadeh‐Rangi N.
Assessment and monitoring of mental workload in subway
train operations using physiological, subjective, and
performance measures. Hum. Factors Man. 2019;1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20831