Why the study?
Current objective stress measures reliably detecting distress under highly noisy conditions are limited, prompting evaluation of salivary cortisol as a complementary assessment tool in high-stress emergency contexts.
Salivary cortisol is a valid complementary assessment tool for detecting distress and eustress in high-stress emergency training contexts.
Salivary cortisol may detect stress on ship bridges; leaves open reliability under noisy critical conditions.
The understanding of stress and its impact on human performance is crucial to mitigate human error in the face of a threat. This is especially the case for critical incidents on a ship bridge, where human error can easily lead to severe danger for crew, cargo, and other vessels. To overcome the current limitations of robust objective stress measures that reliably detect (di-)stress under highly noisy conditions, we set out to explore whether salivary cortisol – the stress biomarker in medicine and psychology – is a valuable complementary assessment tool in a high-stress/emergency context. In a controlled within-subjects experiment (N = 12) using a ship bridge simulator, we measured stress levels under three conditions (80 min each): baseline, low stress (open water navigation task in autopilot), and high stress (open water emergency scenario). We sampled salivary cortisol at 10 min intervals in conjunction with heart rate (variability) monitoring, and subjective stress assessments from both participants and expert evaluators. Results validate salivary cortisol as a successful tool for detecting distress. Unlike the other stress measures, salivary cortisol strongly correlated with expert stress assessments (r = 0.856) and overt stress behavior like instances of freezing and missing response cues. Surprisingly, data further revealed decreased salivary cortisol across periods of self-assessed improved performance (i.e., eustress). In fact, data suggests an inverted u-relationship between performance and salivary cortisol. The findings have direct implications for the vast field of emergency training, and serve as a first important validation and benchmark to proceed with real life applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Balters et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: