4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Electroencephalogram assessment of mental fatigue in visual search

期刊

BIO-MEDICAL MATERIALS AND ENGINEERING
卷 26, 期 -, 页码 S1455-S1463

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/BME-151444

关键词

Mental fatigue; EEG; ratio formulas; entropy; visual search

资金

  1. National Natural Science Fund [31170895]
  2. National Defense preresearch Fund [A0920132003]
  3. Human Factors Engineering Key Laboratory Fund Project [HF2013-K-06]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mental fatigue is considered to be a contributing factor responsible for numerous road accidents and various medical conditions and the efficiency and performance could be impaired during fatigue. Hence, determining how to evaluate mental fatigue is very important. In the present study, ten subjects performed a long-term visual search task with electroencephalogram recorded, and self-assessment and reaction time (RT) were combined to verify if mental fatigue had been induced and were also used as confirmatory tests for the proposed measures. The changes in relative energy in four wavebands (delta, theta, alpha and beta), four ratio formulas [(alpha + theta)/beta, alpha/beta, (alpha + theta)/(alpha + beta), and theta/beta], and Shannon's entropy (SE) were compared and analyzed between the beginning and end of the task. The results showed that a significant increase occurred in alpha activity in the frontal, central, posterior temporal, parietal, and occipital lobes, and a dip occurred in the beta activity in the pre-frontal, inferior frontal, posterior temporal, and occipital lobes. The ratio formulas clearly increased in all of these brain regions except the temporal region, where only alpha/beta changed obviously after finishing the 60-min visual search task. SE significantly increased in the posterior temporal, parietal, and occipital lobes. These results demonstrate some potential indicators for mental fatigue detection and evaluation, which can be applied in the future development of countermeasures to fatigue.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据