How gamification can build cognitive resilience to complex crisis situations

Faced with the acce­le­ra­tion of increa­sin­gly com­plex and uncer­tain inter­na­tio­nal crises, the issue of cog­ni­tive resi­lience has become cen­tral. This concept, which refers to the abi­li­ty to keep a cool head, adapt and make the best deci­sions in situa­tions of stress, infor­ma­tion over­load and ambi­gui­ty, is now a major chal­lenge for both mili­ta­ry and civi­lian decision-makers.

Unfor­tu­na­te­ly, tra­di­tio­nal trai­ning methods based on fixed pro­ce­dures and rela­ti­ve­ly pre­dic­table sce­na­rios are revea­ling their limi­ta­tions. They do not suf­fi­cient­ly reflect the chan­ging, some­times chao­tic rea­li­ty in which actors must ope­rate today. This is where simu­la­tion and gami­fi­ca­tion come into play, offe­ring expe­riences that are more dyna­mic, inter­ac­tive and, above all, clo­ser to the real com­plexi­ty of crises¹.

Cri­sis mana­ge­ment trai­ning has relied on simu­la­tors desi­gned to repro­duce fair­ly linear situa­tions where out­comes are rela­ti­ve­ly pre­dic­table. This approach is effec­tive when it comes to lear­ning pro­ce­dures or reflexes, but proves insuf­fi­cient for pre­pa­ring for hybrid crises, cyber crises, or asym­me­tric conflicts where infor­ma­tion is incom­plete, unclear, or even contra­dic­to­ry. What should be done if attacks simul­ta­neous­ly hit seve­ral vital infra­struc­tures such as the ener­gy², tele­com­mu­ni­ca­tions³ and infor­ma­tion⁴ sectors ?

Under these condi­tions, deci­sion-making becomes a real cog­ni­tive chal­lenge, influen­ced by men­tal load and emo­tions, as well as some­times uncons­cious biases⁵. These essen­tial human aspects are too often absent from tra­di­tio­nal trai­ning, which limits its effec­ti­ve­ness in unpre­dic­table situa­tions⁶. It is the­re­fore neces­sa­ry to moder­nise the tools at our dis­po­sal in order to be bet­ter prepared.

To meet these chal­lenges, seve­ral coun­tries have deve­lo­ped inno­va­tive solu­tions. In the Uni­ted States, for example, DARPA (Defense Advan­ced Research Pro­jects Agen­cy, a mili­ta­ry tech­no­lo­gy research and deve­lop­ment orga­ni­sa­tion) is focu­sing on immer­sive simu­la­tors that incor­po­rate bio­me­tric sen­sors to mea­sure ope­ra­tors’ cog­ni­tive load and emo­tio­nal state in real time. This makes it pos­sible to auto­ma­ti­cal­ly adjust the dif­fi­cul­ty of the exer­cises and offer per­so­na­li­sed trai­ning⁷.

In Chi­na, the approach is even more ambi­tious, with the deve­lop­ment of brain-machine inter­faces aimed at direct­ly increa­sing cog­ni­tive abi­li­ties, such as alert­ness or memo­ry, in high­ly com­plex simu­la­ted envi­ron­ments⁸. In Europe, a more inter­dis­ci­pli­na­ry approach is being taken, com­bi­ning arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence, cog­ni­tive science and social ana­ly­sis to bet­ter model human deci­sion-making in cri­sis situa­tions⁹. Howe­ver, the inte­gra­tion of this research into trai­ning sys­tems has yet to become widespread.

The deve­lop­ment of these tech­no­lo­gies raises ethi­cal and pro­fes­sio­nal conduct issues, such as data use and protection.

Never­the­less, the deve­lop­ment of these tech­no­lo­gies raises cru­cial ethi­cal and deon­to­lo­gi­cal ques­tions. It is impe­ra­tive to gua­ran­tee data pro­tec­tion and ensure that these cog­ni­tive aug­men­ta­tion tools are used within a strict ethi­cal fra­me­work, without mani­pu­la­tive or condi­tio­ning bias and in the inter­ests of citi­zens, i.e. not exclu­si­ve­ly for com­mer­cial or mili­ta­ry pur­poses¹⁰.

Gami­fi­ca­tion is some­times seen as a way to make lear­ning more fun, but its poten­tial goes far beyond that. When well desi­gned, it pro­vides a fra­me­work that simu­lates cog­ni­tive com­plexi­ty, for­cing par­ti­ci­pants to make deci­sions in uncer­tain envi­ron­ments, with conse­quences that can be unpre­dic­table¹¹. These serious games, par­ti­cu­lar­ly those offe­ring mul­tiple-branch sce­na­rios, are effec­tive trai­ning grounds for deve­lo­ping adap­ta­bi­li­ty, stress mana­ge­ment and deci­sion-making under pres­sure¹². In cyber cri­sis trai­ning, for example, their effec­ti­ve­ness has been confir­med by seve­ral stu­dies¹³.

Fur­ther­more, the inte­gra­tion of gene­ra­tive arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence into the desi­gn of these serious games paves the way for even more dyna­mic sce­na­rios, where AI can gene­rate events, cha­rac­ters or twists in real time, making each trai­ning ses­sion unique and requi­ring increa­sed cog­ni­tive adap­ta­bi­li­ty¹⁴.

Bet­ween 2022 and 2024, SRAT (Sys­tem Risk Assess­ment and Tech­no­lo­gy) car­ried out seve­ral pro­jects that per­fect­ly illus­trate this dyna­mic. The team deve­lo­ped a simu­la­tor based on the Uni­ty engine, recrea­ting a cri­sis mana­ge­ment centre in a conflict zone where users’ deci­sions influence the course of events, thus intro­du­cing the notion of uncer­tain­ty and unpre­dic­ta­bi­li­ty. Cou­pled with an elec­troen­ce­pha­lo­gra­phy (EEG) inter­face, this simu­la­tor mea­sures users’ cog­ni­tive load and emo­tions in real time, pro­vi­ding valuable feed­back on their deci­sion-making mecha­nisms. At the same time, SRAT wor­ked on the C‑RAND pro­ject, a bench­mark for emer­ging tech­no­lo­gies in cyber-cog­ni­tive inter­faces, in col­la­bo­ra­tion with the Bri­tish Army. This work enabled the selec­tion of the most sui­table solu­tions for inte­gra­tion into trai­ning and ope­ra­tions sys­tems¹⁵.

Ano­ther notable pro­ject is the deve­lop­ment of a digi­tal serious game in HTML, used to train both Master’s stu­dents and offi­cers at the École Mili­taire Inter­armes. This game simu­lates a cyber cri­sis with mul­tiple rami­fi­ca­tions, for­cing players to manage infor­ma­tion over­load and make quick and rele­vant deci­sions. Feed­back shows a signi­fi­cant impro­ve­ment in adap­ta­bi­li­ty and stress mana­ge­ment skills¹⁶. Final­ly, SRAT has pro­vi­ded more than 100 hours of tea­ching ; com­bi­ning arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence, cog­ni­tive science and stra­te­gy within the Higher Mili­ta­ry Scien­ti­fic and Tech­ni­cal Edu­ca­tion (EMSST), thus pre­pa­ring future exe­cu­tives for the cog­ni­tive chal­lenges of contem­po­ra­ry crises.

Simu­la­tion and gami­fi­ca­tion are stra­te­gic tools that can trans­form trai­ning and increase the cog­ni­tive resi­lience of decision-makers.

To maxi­mise the impact of these tools on lear­ner trai­ning, the role of debrie­fing and struc­tu­red feed­back is cru­cial. Post-simu­la­tion ana­ly­sis, where the data col­lec­ted (cog­ni­tive load, emo­tions, deci­sions) is used for per­so­na­li­sed feed­back, enables par­ti­ci­pants to unders­tand their biases and inte­grate their lear­ning in a las­ting way.

These dif­ferent approaches clear­ly show that simu­la­tion and gami­fi­ca­tion are not mere gad­gets, but stra­te­gic tools capable of trans­for­ming trai­ning and increa­sing the cog­ni­tive resi­lience of deci­sion-makers. In a world where infor­ma­tion is a lever of power and where the speed of deci­sion-making can make the dif­fe­rence bet­ween suc­cess and fai­lure, it is essen­tial to streng­then this abi­li­ty to adapt and make deci­sions under stress¹⁷. Cog­ni­tive sove­rei­gn­ty, like tech­no­lo­gi­cal sove­rei­gn­ty, is now a mat­ter of natio­nal security.

It is also impor­tant to consi­der that cog­ni­tive resi­lience is not sole­ly the pre­serve of deci­sion-makers ; an approach open to eve­ry citi­zen would raise awa­re­ness and pre­pare a wider audience for the cog­ni­tive chal­lenges of contem­po­ra­ry crises (dis­in­for­ma­tion, rumours, emer­gen­cies). In the cur­rent context of hybrid attacks aimed at sprea­ding dis­in­for­ma­tion, stir­ring up hatred and brea­king natio­nal cohe­sion, rai­sing awa­re­ness is a power­ful lever of resis­tance that needs to be developed.

But it is not just about tech­no­lo­gy. Cog­ni­tive resi­lience is a com­plex pro­cess that requires an inte­gra­ted approach, com­bi­ning tech­no­lo­gy, human unders­tan­ding and appro­priate edu­ca­tion. The work of SRAT in France is lea­ding the way, with a prag­ma­tic, rigo­rous approach that is clo­se­ly ali­gned with the real needs of the armed forces. The chal­lenge now is to ensure the wider dis­se­mi­na­tion and adop­tion of these inno­va­tions, so that cog­ni­tive trai­ning becomes an ope­ra­tio­nal rea­li­ty and an asset in the mana­ge­ment of tomor­row’s crises.

Simu­la­tion and gami­fi­ca­tion open up exci­ting pros­pects for mee­ting the chal­lenge of cog­ni­tive resi­lience. More than ever, these tools must be seen as essen­tial levers for pre­pa­ring deci­sion-makers for the com­plex and uncer­tain rea­li­ties of modern crises. Com­bi­ning tech­no­lo­gi­cal advances with a human-cen­tred approach is the key to buil­ding true cog­ni­tive sove­rei­gn­ty, gua­ran­teeing effi­cien­cy and secu­ri­ty in a rapid­ly chan­ging world.