| Literature DB >> 31178905 |
Wanja Wolff1,2, Julia Schüler1, Jonas Hofstetter1, Lorena Baumann1, Lena Wolf1, Christian Dettmers3.
Abstract
Patients with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) frequently suffer from fatigue, but this debilitating symptom is not yet fully understood. We propose that self-control can be conceptually and mechanistically linked to the fatigue concept and might help explain some of the diversity on how PwMS who suffer from fatigue deal with this symptom. To test this claim, we first assessed how cortical oxygenation and measures of motor and cognitive state fatigue change during a strenuous physical task, and then we tested the predictive validity of trait fatigue and trait self-control in explaining the observed changes. A sample of N = 51 PwMS first completed a test battery to collect trait measures of fatigue and self-control. PwMS then performed an isometric hand contraction task at 10% of their maximum voluntary contraction until exhaustion while we repeatedly assessed ratings of perceived cognitive and motor exertion. In addition, we continuously measured oxygenation of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) using functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Linear mixed-effect models revealed significant increases in perceived motor and cognitive exertion, as well as increases in PFC oxygenation. Hierarchical stepwise regression analyses showed that higher trait self-control predicted a less steep increase in PFC oxygenation and perceived cognitive exertion, while trait fatigue did not predict change in any dependent variable. These results provide preliminary evidence for the suggested link between self-control and fatigue. As self-control can be enhanced with training, this finding possibly has important implications for devising nonpharmacological interventions to help patients deal with symptoms of fatigue.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31178905 PMCID: PMC6507165 DOI: 10.1155/2019/8527203
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neural Plast ISSN: 1687-5443 Impact factor: 3.599
Figure 1(a) Source-Detector Grid (SD-Grid) as constructed in the SD GUI (AtlasViewer): X- and Y-axes define a planar space in mm. Yellow lines are channels connecting emitters (in red; E1-E8) with detectors (in blue, D1-D7). Continuous green lines (fixed springs) and channel lines set nonalterable spacing within the probe geometry. Dashed green lines (flexible springs) set alterable spacing within the probe geometry. Springs connect either emitters with detectors or optodes with dummy optodes. Dummy optodes (in black, 16-21) were used to fix the montage to “anchor points” within the 10-5 system for optode placement as specified: 16 at Nz, 17 at AFz, 18 at F7, 19 at F8, 20 at F4, and 21 at F3. Congruence of single emitter (E) and detector (D) positions with the international 10-5 system was maintained for E1 at FFC4, E2 at Fz, E3 at FFC3, E4 at AF4h, E5 at AF3h, E6 at AF8h, E7 at Fpz, E8 at AF7h, D1 at F2, D2 at F1, D3 at AFF6h, D4 at AFz, D5 at AFF5h, D6 at Fp2, and D7 at Fp1. This montage was designed to measure oxygenation concentration at 22 different subareas of the PFC corresponding to the following emitter-detector combinations: E1_D1, E1_D3, E2_D1, E2_D2, E2_D4, E3_D2, E3_D5, E4_D1, E4_D3, E4_D4, E4_D6, E5_D2, E5_D4, E5_D5, E5_D7, E6_D3, E6_D6, E7_D4, E7_D6, E7_D7, E8_D5, and E8_D7. (b) Sensitivity profile as created with AtlasViewer: a Monte Carlo random walk was run with 1e7 photons (per optode) migrating through a standard atlas.
Figure 2Correlogram of regressor variables.
Figure 3Change in fatigue-relevant state measures (a) and fNIRS signal (b) as a function of isotime in the ICT. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.
Summary of stepwise linear regression analysis for psychological predictors of rate of change in dependent measures.
| Measures | Model 0 | Model 1 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| SE |
|
|
|
| SE |
|
|
| |
| RPEmotor | 0.626 | 0.618 | — | — | ||||||
| TTF | −0.001 | 1.143 | −0.791∗∗ | — | — | — | ||||
| SCS | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||
| RPEcognitive | 0.203 | 0.186 | 0.409 | 0.384 | ||||||
| TTF | −5.176 | −1.498 | −0.450∗∗ | −6.304 | 1.333 | −0.548∗∗ | ||||
| SCS | — | — | — | −0.028 | 0.007 | −0.465∗∗ | ||||
| HbO | 0.244 | 0.228 | 0.367 | 0.340 | ||||||
| TTF | −2.532 | 6.497 | −0.494∗∗ | −2.919 | 6.148 | −0.570∗∗ | ||||
| SCS | — | — | — | −0.010 | 0.003 | −0.359∗∗ | ||||
Notes: ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01. RPEmotor: ratings of perceived motor exertion; RPEcognitive: ratings of perceived cognitive exertion; HbO: Concentration of Oxygenated Hemoglobin; TTF: time to failure; SCS: Self-Control Scale.