| Literature DB >> 30441867 |
Tianhong Duan1,2, Nong Zhang3,4, Kaiway Li5, Xuelin Hou6,7, Jun Pei8,9.
Abstract
Most of the research on mental fatigue evaluation has mainly concentrated on some indexes that require sophisticated and large instruments that make the detection of mental fatigue cumbersome, time-consuming, and difficult to apply on a large scale. A quick and sensitive mental fatigue detection index is necessary so that mentally fatigued workers can be alerted in time and take corresponding countermeasures. However, to date, no studies have compared the sensitivity of common objective evaluation indexes. To solve these problems, this study recruited 56 human subjects. These subjects were evaluated using six fatigue indexes: the Stanford sleepiness scale, digital span, digital decoding, short-term memory, critical flicker fusion frequency (CFF), and speed perception deviation. The results of the fatigue tests before and after mental fatigue were compared, and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the speed perception deviation. The results indicated the significance of this index. Considering individual differences, the relative fatigue index (RFI) was proposed to compare the sensitivity of the indexes. The results showed that when the self-rated fatigue grade changed from non-fatigue to mild fatigue, the ranges of RFI values for digital span, digital decoding, short-term memory, and CFF were 0.175⁻0.258, 0.194⁻0.316, 0.068⁻0.139, and 0.055⁻0.075, respectively. Correspondingly, when the self-rated fatigue grade changed to severe fatigue, the ranges of RFI values for the above indexes were 0.415⁻0.577, 0.482⁻0.669, 0.329⁻0.396, and 0.114⁻0.218, respectively. These results suggest that the sensitivity of the digital decoding, digital span, short-term memory, and CFF decreased sequentially when the self-evaluated fatigue grade changed from no fatigue to mild or severe fatigue. The RFI individuality of the speed perception deviation is highly variable and is not suitable as an evaluation index. In mental fatigue testing, digital decoding testing can provide faster, more convenient, and more accurate results.Entities:
Keywords: digital decoding testing; mental fatigue; one-way ANOVA; relative fatigue index (RFI); sensitivity ordering
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30441867 PMCID: PMC6265841 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15112555
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Digital symbol control table.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| _ | ⊥ | コ | ∟ | ∪ | O | Λ | Ⅹ | = |
Figure 1Experimental scene during the digital decoding testing.
Figure 2Speed perception deviation tester.
Figure 3EP803 memory ability tester.
Figure 4EP403 highlight scintillometer.
Figure 5Number of subjects with each fatigue grade before and after mental fatigue.
Detection results for various fatigue indexes of the three statuses ( ± ).
| Status | Digital Span (Score) | Digital Decoding (Score) | Short-Term Memory (Score) | CFF (Hz) | Speed Perception Deviation (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-fatigue | 7.20 ± 0.90 | 10.80 ± 2.0 | 25.72 ± 1.81 | 49.95 ± 4.29 | 0.44 ± 0.24 |
| Mild fatigue | 5.55 ± 0.93 | 7.77 ± 0.81 | 22.45 ± 1.71 | 45.74 ± 4.10 | 0.55 ± 0.36 |
| Severe fatigue | 3.65 ± 1.09 | 4.75 ± 1.33 | 16.80 ± 2.07 | 42.71 ± 3.78 | 0.62 ± 0.26 |
Significance analysis of the speed perception deviation index.
| Fatigue State Transition | Sources of Variation | SS (Sum of Squares) | df | MS (Mean of Squares) | F | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-fatigue to mild fatigue | Mental fatigue | 0.98 | 1 | 0.98 | 51.24 | <0.05 |
| error | 0.60 | 60 | 0.01 | |||
| Total | 1.58 | 61 | ||||
| Non-fatigue or mild fatigue to severe fatigue | Mental fatigue | 3.58 | 1 | 3.58 | 254.07 | <0.05 |
| error | 0.48 | 38 | 0.02 | |||
| Total | 4.06 | 39 |
Figure 6Digital span index scores for the two experiments.
Figure 7Digital decoding scores for the two experiments.
Figure 8Speed perception deviation results for the two experiments.
One-way ANOVA on RFI values for the five indexes.
| Index | Sources of Variation | SS (Sum of Squares) | df | MS (Mean of Squares) | F | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RFI of Digital span | Mental fatigue | 0.90 | 1 | 0.90 | 62.40 | 0.00 |
| error | 0.70 | 49 | 0.01 | |||
| Total | 1.60 | 50 | ||||
| RFI of Digital decoding | Mental fatigue | 1.06 | 1 | 1.06 | 51.26 | 0.00 |
| error | 1.02 | 49 | 0.02 | |||
| Total | 2.08 | 50 | ||||
| RFI of Short-term memory | Mental fatigue | 0.76 | 1 | 0.76 | 126.93 | 0.00 |
| error | 0.29 | 49 | 0.01 | |||
| Total | 1.05 | 50 | ||||
| RFI of CFF | Mental fatigue | 0.08 | 1 | 0.08 | 28.73 | 0.00 |
| error | 0.14 | 49 | 0.00 | |||
| Total | 0.22 | 50 | ||||
| RFI of Speed perception deviation | Mental fatigue | 0.26 | 1 | 0.26 | 0.93 | 0.34 |
| error | 13.83 | 49 | 0.28 | |||
| Total | 14.09 | 50 |
RFI range for subjects who changed from non-fatigue to mild fatigue states.
| Testing Index | RFI Range |
|---|---|
| Digital span | 0.175–0.258 |
| Digital decoding | 0.194–0.316 |
| Short-term memory | 0.068–0.139 |
| CFF | 0.055–0.075 |
| Speed perception deviation | 0.055–0.440 |
Figure 9RFI values of different indexes. (a) From non-fatigue to mild fatigue; (b) From non-fatigue to severe fatigue.
RFI range for subjects who changed to severe fatigue states.
| Testing Index | RFI Range |
|---|---|
| Digital span | 0.415–0.577 |
| Digital decoding | 0.482–0.669 |
| Short-term memory | 0.329–0.396 |
| CFF | 0.114–0.218 |
| Speed perception deviation | 0.122–0.675 |
Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of indexes.
| Fatigue Testing Methods | Sensitivity Order | Testing Time (s) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non-Fatigue to Mild Fatigue | Non-Fatigue to Severe Fatigue | ||
| Digital span | 2 | 2 | 140 |
| Digital decoding | 1 | 1 | 120 |
| Short-term memory | 3 | 3 | 150 |
| CFF | 4 | 4 | 180 |