Fatigue Resistance Assessed in Five Tasks for a Single Session of Sleep Deprivation

Abstract

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES14. ABSTRACT To assess whether individuals (n=89) could be put on a trait dimension of fatigue resistance (c.f., Von Dongen, Maislin, & Dinges, 2004), we observed performance on cognitive tasks in a single 48-hour sustained-wake protocol. Individual differences in task performance were largest late in the protocol. Next we developed methods for classifying a participant as fatigue resistant or susceptible, as part of a larger project investigating genetic factors in fatigue-resistance. We considered a rule based on percent-change decrement with fatigue and another rule based on residuals of task performance predicted by (presumably non-genetic) sleep behaviors, which were shown to bias raw percent-change classifications. Classifications based on ranking residuals were less confounded by sleep behaviors than similar classifications based on percent change. Finally, we assessed the SAFTE fatigue model (Hursh, Redmond, Johnson, Thorne, Belenky, Balkin, Storm, Miller, Eddy, 2004) on sustained performance across the different tasks. While this model is a simulation theory of physiological fatigue, and as such task-independent, we discuss relatively simple ways to put theory and task performances on the same quantitative scale to assess model adequacy. SUBJECT TERMS ABSTRACTTo assess whether individuals (n=89) could be put on a trait dimension of fatigue

Biomarkers of Fatigue: Ranking Mental Fatigue Susceptibility

“…Finally, the Cattell Culture Fair Intelligence Test (Nenty & Dinero, 1981) was given at the end of training to examine issues related to the trained/untrained task, between-subjects, group manipulation. However, we predicted "no relationship" of Cattell scores to fatigue impact on the basis of observations from our earlier research (Chaiken et al, 2008) that showed fatigue resistance ranking and baseline performance (before fatigue) were unrelated. While there was no Cattell test given in the earlier study, baseline performance on the ANAM-Core tasks were unrelated to participants' fatigue classifications.…”

“…Overall (i.e., mean) sensitivity of tasks to fatigue (i.e., trial number) was assessed on best performance metrics for ANAM-core and PVT via SPSS repeated-measures MANOVAs to verify significant fatigue effects for the tasks. Subject rankings for fatigue resistance were then determined via a percent-change rule similar to that used in Chaiken, Harville, Harrison, Fischer, Fisher, and Whitmore (2008). This rule ranks subjects on percent change of cognitive performance from a baseline performance (before fatigue) to a fatigue impact measured on trials beyond the baseline (during fatigue).…”

“…This rule ranks subjects on percent change of cognitive performance from a baseline performance (before fatigue) to a fatigue impact measured on trials beyond the baseline (during fatigue). Because of the non-identical testing conditions between this study and the cited one (i.e., 48 hours of sleep deprivation for the cited one and 36 hours, 15 minutes for this one), adjustments to the specific ranking procedures from Chaiken et al (2008) were made. Details on the current ranking procedure and some comparisons to the older study (both in terms of ranking methods and study results) are given in the results.…”

Fatigue impact on teams versus individuals during complex tasks.

“…ISZ puts all trial scores from a unit (team or individual) on a metric that reflects a distance from that unit's mean trial score during the protocol, scaled by that unit's performance variability over the protocol. We argued elsewhere (Chaiken et al, 2008) that ISZ is a reasonable tactic for assessing differential fatigue impact across situations. ISZ provides a defensible method to compare task productivity, where productivity is unrelated to utility and only relates to performer output under a range of conditions (e.g., fatigue levels).…”

“…Finally, we should mention that our interest in task context (individual vs. teaming) occurred in a larger study context that used the simple cognitive tasks to identify people with a phenotype for fatigue resistance or fatigue susceptibility (Chaiken et al, 2008). The research activity we report here was our method to keep participants active in a work-like fashion during sustained wake for the larger study.…”