Daring to leave the laboratory: Why operational neuroscience requires a different research strategy
Abstract
In this opinion paper, we highlight why taking neuroscience into complex operational environments requires a different analytical logic from that used in controlled experiments. Laboratory paradigms are powerful because they isolate cognitive processes, repeat conditions and compare averaged responses. Operational work removes much of that control. A critical event may occur only once, several cognitive processes may unfold together, and the meaning of a neural response depends on what the individual or team was doing at that moment. We describe a pragmatic approach developed through our neuroergonomics work. We transform continuous haemodynamic signals into discrete ROI-specific activation events, producing an event-by-ROI activation matrix (Spearfish code). These events are then linked to synchronized video and operational data and compared with expert or desired-performance benchmarks. This approach does not recreate laboratory causality in the field. It provides a structured way to identify when and where potentially meaningful activation occurs and to interpret it against performance and context. We discuss its use for training, cognitive-load mapping, human-centred automation and team workload allocation, while making explicit the limits of the resulting inference.
Related
- A two-stage RAG-LLM pipeline for roadmapping neuroscience research in operational environments.
- Neurocognition of dance: Guidelines for using dance as model behavior and research subject in cognitive neuroscience
- Forging Sustainable Research: Integrating Sustainability into Neuroscience Education
- Spyglass is a framework for reproducible and shareable neuroscience research
- Ethics in research projects: a shift in scale toward operational ethics
BibTeX
@misc{rotgans2026daring,
title = {{Daring to leave the laboratory: Why operational neuroscience requires a different research strategy}},
author = {Jerome I. Rotgans},
howpublished = {PsyArXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.31234/osf.io/y5trb_v1},
url = {https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/y5trb_v1/},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Daring to leave the laboratory: Why operational neuroscience requires a different research strategy
AU - Jerome I. Rotgans
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/24
PB - PsyArXiv
DO - 10.31234/osf.io/y5trb_v1
UR - https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/y5trb_v1/
AB - In this opinion paper, we highlight why taking neuroscience into complex operational environments requires a different analytical logic from that used in controlled experiments. Laboratory paradigms are powerful because they isolate cognitive processes, repeat conditions and compare averaged responses. Operational work removes much of that control. A critical event may occur only once, several cognitive processes may unfold together, and the meaning of a neural response depends on what the individual or team was doing at that moment. We describe a pragmatic approach developed through our neuroergonomics work. We transform continuous haemodynamic signals into discrete ROI-specific activation events, producing an event-by-ROI activation matrix (Spearfish code). These events are then linked to synchronized video and operational data and compared with expert or desired-performance benchmarks. This approach does not recreate laboratory causality in the field. It provides a structured way to identify when and where potentially meaningful activation occurs and to interpret it against performance and context. We discuss its use for training, cognitive-load mapping, human-centred automation and team workload allocation, while making explicit the limits of the resulting inference.
ER -