4.2 Article

Resting Cardiac Vagal Tone is Associated with Long-Term Frustration Level of Mental Workload: Ultra-short Term Recording Reliability

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10484-019-09445-z

关键词

Heart rate variability; Mental workload; Frustration level; Autonomic nervous system; NASA-TLX; rMSSD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Excessive mental workload represent a critical risk factor for workplace accidents. Heart rate variability (HRV) is a non-invasive low cost electrophysiological autonomic biomarker related to emotional and cognitive regulation. Several studies report that mental overload impairs parasympathetic-mediated HRV indices (e.g. rMSSD). However, the influence of resting state HRV as a predictor of long-term mental workload impairments remains unknown. Thirty participants (22 males; 8 females) had their HRV measured (5-min period) before performing the number search task. After the task, the mental load was accessed by the NASA-TLX questionnaire. A simple linear regression model between HRV and NASA-TLX dimensions showed that resting state rMSSD is associated to physical demand (ND-2, R-2 = 0.143, p = 0.03) and frustration level (ND-6, R-2 = 0.175, p = 0.02) dimensions of mental workload. The comparison between 1 and 5-min epochs suggests that regression models remain reliable even using the ultra-short term HRV (< 1 min) recording values (R-2 values from 0.11 to 0.15 for ND-2 and R-2 values from 0.16 to 0.19 for ND-6). These results suggest that resting state HRV is associated to long-term effects of mental workload on physical and emotional demands. In addition, the ultra-short term HRV indices remains reliable to assess ND-2 and ND-6 dimensions of mental workload when compared to gold-standard time interval (> 5 min). The resting state cardiac autonomic tone assessment optimizes the physiological approach with a quick, non-invasive and low-cost assessment that can provide insights about mental load adjustments to prevent work-related accidents.

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