Fatigue management: a systematic review of objective measurement techniques for cognitive fatigue.

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology Pub Date : 2024-10-18 DOI:10.1080/13803395.2024.2415070
Alicia Dickens, Andrew J Champion, Kimberley C Schenke
{"title":"Fatigue management: a systematic review of objective measurement techniques for cognitive fatigue.","authors":"Alicia Dickens, Andrew J Champion, Kimberley C Schenke","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2024.2415070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cognitive fatigue is a complex psychobiological state whereby task performance cannot be maintained. Return-to-work protocols typically rely on self-report measures, therefore the current systematic review aimed to identify \"real-time\" measures of objective cognitive fatigue to inform return-to-work protocols.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Studies were included if participants were at least 18 years old, assessed \"real-time\" objective cognitive fatigue that could be used outside of the lab (neuroimaging measures were, therefore, excluded), used an induction task that was separate to the measurement, were adequately powered, compared objective cognitive fatigue at baseline and post-induction, and included a cognitive fatigue induction task that was at least 30 minutes long.Nine electronic databases were searched until 31 December 2022 (MEDLINE; PsychArticle; PubMED, ProQuest; ProQuest for gray literature; Google Scholar; The Cochrane Library; The Health Technology Assessment Database; and Web of Science), with alerts set up on Google Scholar to notify of new relevant research since this date (reviewed until December 2023). The checklist for quasi-experimental studies (Joanna Briggs Institute, 2014) was used to assess the risk of bias. Whilst a meta-analysis was planned, the data were unsuitable so only a narrative synthesis was conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-seven studies were included, which were conducted within a variety of settings including naturalistic work scenarios, driving, aviation, and artificial computer-based tasks.Whilst the review found a range of potential measurements, there were inconsistencies in findings across studies highlighting the need for more research into the reliable measurement of objective cognitive fatigue in natural settings.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The findings suggest that eye- and body-related measures may be sensitive measures of objective cognitive fatigue. However, comparisons across measurement types should be cautiously interpreted because eye-related and cognitive measures were far more common. The review highlighted the need for more consistent and transparent reporting across the field to advance our understanding of cognitive fatigue.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2024.2415070","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cognitive fatigue is a complex psychobiological state whereby task performance cannot be maintained. Return-to-work protocols typically rely on self-report measures, therefore the current systematic review aimed to identify "real-time" measures of objective cognitive fatigue to inform return-to-work protocols.

Methods: Studies were included if participants were at least 18 years old, assessed "real-time" objective cognitive fatigue that could be used outside of the lab (neuroimaging measures were, therefore, excluded), used an induction task that was separate to the measurement, were adequately powered, compared objective cognitive fatigue at baseline and post-induction, and included a cognitive fatigue induction task that was at least 30 minutes long.Nine electronic databases were searched until 31 December 2022 (MEDLINE; PsychArticle; PubMED, ProQuest; ProQuest for gray literature; Google Scholar; The Cochrane Library; The Health Technology Assessment Database; and Web of Science), with alerts set up on Google Scholar to notify of new relevant research since this date (reviewed until December 2023). The checklist for quasi-experimental studies (Joanna Briggs Institute, 2014) was used to assess the risk of bias. Whilst a meta-analysis was planned, the data were unsuitable so only a narrative synthesis was conducted.

Results: Fifty-seven studies were included, which were conducted within a variety of settings including naturalistic work scenarios, driving, aviation, and artificial computer-based tasks.Whilst the review found a range of potential measurements, there were inconsistencies in findings across studies highlighting the need for more research into the reliable measurement of objective cognitive fatigue in natural settings.

Discussion: The findings suggest that eye- and body-related measures may be sensitive measures of objective cognitive fatigue. However, comparisons across measurement types should be cautiously interpreted because eye-related and cognitive measures were far more common. The review highlighted the need for more consistent and transparent reporting across the field to advance our understanding of cognitive fatigue.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
疲劳管理:认知疲劳客观测量技术的系统回顾。
背景:认知疲劳是一种复杂的心理生物学状态,在这种状态下,任务表现无法维持。重返工作岗位方案通常依赖于自我报告测量,因此本系统综述旨在确定客观认知疲劳的 "实时 "测量方法,为重返工作岗位方案提供依据:如果参与者至少年满 18 周岁、评估的是可在实验室外使用的 "实时 "客观认知疲劳(因此不包括神经影像测量)、使用了与测量分开的诱导任务、有足够的动力、比较了基线和诱导后的客观认知疲劳,并且包含至少 30 分钟的认知疲劳诱导任务,则纳入研究。截至 2022 年 12 月 31 日,共检索了九个电子数据库(MEDLINE、PsychArticle、PubMED、ProQuest、ProQuest 灰色文献、谷歌学术、Cochrane 图书馆、卫生技术评估数据库和 Web of Science),并在谷歌学术上设置了警报,以通知自该日期以来的新相关研究(审查至 2023 年 12 月)。准实验研究检查表(乔安娜-布里格斯研究所,2014 年)用于评估偏倚风险。虽然计划进行荟萃分析,但由于数据不合适,因此只进行了叙述性综合分析:结果:共纳入了 57 项研究,这些研究是在各种环境下进行的,包括自然工作场景、驾驶、航空和基于人工计算机的任务。虽然综述发现了一系列潜在的测量方法,但各项研究的结果并不一致,这突出表明需要对自然环境下客观认知疲劳的可靠测量方法进行更多研究:讨论:研究结果表明,与眼睛和身体相关的测量方法可能是客观认知疲劳的敏感测量方法。然而,由于与眼睛和认知相关的测量方法更为常见,因此在解释不同测量类型之间的比较时应谨慎。综述强调,需要在整个领域进行更加一致和透明的报告,以促进我们对认知疲劳的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( JCEN) publishes research on the neuropsychological consequences of brain disease, disorders, and dysfunction, and aims to promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of JCEN is to publish original empirical research pertaining to brain-behavior relationships and neuropsychological manifestations of brain disease. Theoretical and methodological papers, critical reviews of content areas, and theoretically-relevant case studies are also welcome.
期刊最新文献
Cardiorespiratory fitness and working memory in persons with traumatic brain injury: a cross-sectional analysis. Fatigue management: a systematic review of objective measurement techniques for cognitive fatigue. Cognitive reserve in individuals with frontotemporal dementia: a systematic review. Optimal cutoff scores of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment to detect mild cognitive impairment and dementia in Costa Rican older adults. Symptom validity testing in adults with clinically diagnosed ADHD: comparison of the Conner's Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS) and the Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1