What simulation architecture does to the person in the system.
The Human Outcomes Framework (HOF) is the third layer of the SFR framework. It extends the framework's analysis from physics and classification into the domain of human neurological outcomes — defining how simulation architecture shapes the sensory inputs the nervous system receives, what the nervous system does with those inputs, how it adapts, and whether those adaptations transfer to the real-world environment.
This page introduces the Human Outcomes Framework — the part of SFR that examines what simulation architecture does to the person inside the system. No technical background required to read this summary.
New to SFR? This page is part of the framework's Human Outcomes layer. For a plain-language introduction to how classification works and why it matters, read Start Here first.
Start Here →The SFR framework is organized in three layers. Each layer addresses a different level of the relationship between simulation systems and their effects:
The eight Foundation documents define what physically accurate simulation requires: rigid-body dynamics, center-of-mass reference, independent degrees of freedom, and the physics chain that underlies valid sensory delivery. This layer is about the machine and the physics it must correctly represent.
The Control Layer documents define the consequences and evaluation of simulation systems that do not meet Foundation requirements. Classification, evaluation, and determination occur here. This layer characterizes what happens when the physics requirements are not met — and provides the structural basis for assessing any given system.
The Human Outcomes Layer extends the framework's analysis into the domain of human neurological outcomes. It addresses the mechanism by which simulation architecture affects the nervous system: what the nervous system receives, how it processes those inputs, what it adapts to, and whether those adaptations transfer to the real world.
The Human Outcomes Framework proposes a four-step causal chain from simulation architecture to training outcome. Each step is downstream of the previous one, and each is addressed by a dedicated framework document.
Each step in the chain represents a domain where simulation architecture may shape the nervous system's experience and the training outcomes that result.
Each of the four chain steps is addressed by a dedicated framework document. The documents should be read in sequence for the complete Human Outcomes chain, or individually for reference to specific concepts.
Defines sensory fidelity as the degree to which a simulation environment delivers consistent inputs to all three sensory channels. Introduces the canonical definition of Sensory Coherence (Definition 11) and establishes how simulation tier affects the structural conditions for sensory coherence.
Sensory Fidelity →Defines how the nervous system integrates simulation inputs and what determines whether processing is directed toward productive adaptation or conflict-resolution overhead. Introduces canonical definitions of Neurological Loading (13) and Compensatory Demand (14).
Neurological Processing →Defines the adaptation mechanism and establishes that the nervous system adapts to the environment it is exposed to. Explains why simulator performance is not a reliable indicator of adaptation direction, and why adaptation direction determines transfer potential.
Neurological Adaptation →Defines training transfer and the conditions under which simulation-acquired adaptations may transfer to the real-world target environment. Introduces the canonical definition of Training Transfer (12). Gateway to the five application branches.
Training Transfer →The five application branches each examine training transfer in a specific context. They are parallel — each begins from the Training Transfer foundation and addresses a distinct domain or population where the HOF chain's implications have particular practical relevance.
How simulation architecture may affect cognitive training outcomes — decision-making, hazard recognition, and attention allocation under physical load.
Cognitive Training →The distinction between simulator reaction time and real-world reaction time transfer. The role of vestibular priority (Definition 16) in anticipatory motor control.
Reaction Time Preservation →The canonical definition of Reduced Neurological Reserve (Definition 15) and its relevance to simulation protocol design for populations with diminished processing capacity.
Reduced Neurological Reserve →The framework's position on simulation use in rehabilitation programs and the relevance of simulation tier to protocol design in recovery contexts.
Fidelity and Rehabilitation →The framework's position that simulation fidelity is a patient safety consideration in medical and rehabilitation contexts, and the explicit boundary with clinical decision-making.
Patient Safety and Fidelity →The Human Outcomes Framework introduces six new canonical definitions (Definitions 11–16) to the SFR framework's normative terminology. All six are established in Canonical Definitions. Each is listed below with its canonical source document.
The condition in which vestibular, proprioceptive, and visual inputs are physically consistent with one another and with the motion state being simulated.
The degree to which simulation-acquired adaptations are expressed in the real-world environment the simulation is intended to represent.
The total processing demand placed on the nervous system during a simulation session, comprising productive and conflict-resolution components.
The component of neurological loading attributable to resolving sensory conflict arising from physically incoherent simulation inputs.
A condition in which an individual's available neurological processing capacity is diminished relative to the baseline demands of a given simulation environment.
The principle that vestibular information occupies a primary role in anticipatory control and reaction timing due to its temporal precedence over visual confirmation.
All six definitions are normative and govern the use of these terms across all HOF documents. See Canonical Definitions for the complete normative text of each definition.
The Human Outcomes Layer documents are classified as Informative within the SFR governance framework. They establish the framework's structural propositions about the relationship between simulation architecture and human outcomes. They do not modify the normative classification criteria defined in the Foundation and Control Layers, and they do not constitute clinical practice standards, training program requirements, or safety protocols.
The HOF proposes that classification tier carries structural implications for human outcomes — specifically for sensory coherence, neurological loading, adaptation direction, and training transfer. The strength of each link in the HOF chain, and the conditions under which it applies, are open research questions. The framework's canonical definitions provide the terminology for researching and discussing these questions with a shared vocabulary.
Classification tier provides structural information. Training program design, protocol selection, clinical decisions, and participant safety determinations remain the responsibility of the qualified professionals and organizations conducting those programs.