| Literature DB >> 35222056 |
Svetlana Lebedeva1, Dmitry Shved1,2, Alexandra Savinkina1.
Abstract
The article describes methods of non-verbal speech characteristics analysis used to determine psychophysiological state of female subjects under simulated microgravity conditions ("dry" immersion, DI), as well as the results of the study. A number of indicators of the acute period of adaptation to microgravity conditions was described. The acute adaptation period in female subjects began earlier (evening of the 1st day of DI) and ended faster than in male ones in previous studies (2nd day of DI). This was indicated by a decrease in the level of state anxiety (STAI, p < 0,05) and depression-dejection [Profile of Mood States (POMS), p < 0,05], as well as a decrease in pitch (p < 0,05) and voice intensity (p < 0,05). In addition, women, apparently, used the "freeze" coping strategy - the proportion of neutral facial expressions on the most intense days of the experiment was at maximum. The subjects in this experiment assessed their feelings and emotions better, giving more accurate answers in self-assessment questionnaires, but at the same time tried to look and sound as calm and confident as possible, controlling their expressions. Same trends in the subjects' cognitive performance were identified as in similar experimental conditions earlier: the subjects' psychophysiological excitement corresponded to better performance in sensorimotor tasks. The difference was in the speed of mathematical computation: women in the present study performed the computation faster on the same days when they made fewer pauses in speech, while in men in previous experiments this relationship was inverse.Entities:
Keywords: NAIAD-2020; dry immersion; ground-based model of microgravity; human operator performance; psychophysiological state; speech analysis; women
Year: 2022 PMID: 35222056 PMCID: PMC8873526 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2021.751016
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
Design of the psychophysiological study of female 3-day dry immersion.
| Approaches and techniques used | Timing | Duration | Explanations |
| Medical control | 7:30-8 am | 5 min | Assessment of body temperature, heart rate, blood pressure (systolic and diastolic). |
| Speech acoustic analysis | 8 am | 5 min | F0 (Mean and Median), speech signal intensity, number of pulses, unvoiced speech fragments, jitter and shimmer were analyzed in voice recordings. |
| Facial expressions analysis | Emotional state assessment using FaceReader software. | ||
|
| |||
| State-trait anxiety inventory (STAI) | 10 am | 1 min | Analysis of the subjective assessment of state anxiety. |
| Profile of mood states (POMS) | 5 min | Analysis of the subjective mood assessment. | |
| Cognitive and sensorimotor tests | 10 min | Human operator activity analysis using the computer-aided cognitive and sensorimotor tests. | |
|
| |||
| State-trait anxiety inventory (STAI) | 6–7 pm | 1 min | Analysis of the subjective assessment of state anxiety. |
| Profile of mood states (POMS) | 5 min | Analysis of the subjective mood assessment. | |
| Cognitive and sensorimotor tests | 10 min | Human operator activity analysis using the computer-aided cognitive and sensorimotor tests. | |
|
| |||
| Medical control | 9 pm | 5 min | Assessment of body temperature, heart rate, blood pressure (systolic and diastolic). |
| Speech acoustic analysis | 9–10 pm | 5 min | F0 (Mean and Median), speech signal intensity, number of pulses, unvoiced speech fragments, jitter and shimmer were analyzed in voice recordings. |
| Facial expressions analysis | Emotional state assessment using FaceReader software. | ||
FIGURE 1Average mean pitch per morning/evening during the 3-days “dry” immersion experiment. Mean ± SEM.
FIGURE 2Average intensity per morning/evening during the 3-days “dry” immersion experiment. Mean ± SEM.
FIGURE 3Average neutral emotion (facial expression) per morning/evening during the 3-days “dry” immersion experiment. Mean ± SEM.
FIGURE 4Average mood states (Vigor-Activity, Depression-Dejection and Fatigue-Inertia) per morning/evening during the 3-days “dry” immersion experiment. Mean ± SEM.
FIGURE 5Average state anxiety per morning/evening during the 3-days “dry” immersion experiment. Mean ± SEM.
FIGURE 6Average error/lability in RMO Extrapolation test per morning/evening during the 3-days “dry” immersion experiment. Mean ± SEM.
FIGURE 7Average time for simple math calculations per morning/evening during the 3-days “dry” immersion experiment. Mean ± SEM.
Tests of between-subjects effects with basic emotions and days covariates.
| Dependent variable: | “RMO extrapolation” error/lability | Time for math calculations | Median pitch | Jitter |
| Source | Sig. | Sig. | Sig. | Sig. |
| Corrected model | 0,000 | 0,000 | 0,011 | 0,062 |
| Intercept | 0,000 | 0,007 | 0,004 | 0,666 |
| N day | 0,003 | 0,119 | 0,446 | 0,079 |
| Neutral | 0,002 | 0,052 | 0,568 | 0,073 |
| Happy | 0,026 | 0,088 | 0,685 | 0,036 |
| Sad | 0,160 | 0,139 | 0,725 | 0,043 |
| Angry | 0,187 | 0,120 | 0,046 | 0,037 |
| Surprised | 0,023 | 0,052 | 0,905 | 0,174 |
| Scared | 0,120 | 0,471 | 0,588 | 0,091 |
| Disgusted | 0,116 | 0,134 | 0,857 | 0,048 |
| Valence | 0,059 | 0,101 | 0,541 | 0,037 |
| Arousal | 0,050 | 0,350 | 0,029 | 0,274 |
| Subject name | 0,000 | 0,000 | 0,004 | 0,010 |
| Am/Pm | 0,323 | 0,119 | 0,230 | 0,475 |
| Subject name Am/Pm | 0,030 | 0,288 | 0,016 | 0,397 |
| R squared | 0,949 | 0,960 | 0,883 | 0,747 |
| Adjusted R squared | 0,852 | 0,884 | 0,658 | 0,263 |