Department of Sport, Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, La Trobe University.
Department of Psychology, Counselling and Therapy, La Trobe University.
Can J Exp Psychol. 2024 Mar;78(1):50-65. doi: 10.1037/cep0000312. Epub 2023 Aug 10.
Research in cognitive fatigue has identified the negative impact that cognitive exertion can have on subsequent task performance. An underexamined question is whether there are different types of fatigue, particularly: active fatigue, similar to cognitive fatigue, and passive fatigue, similar to boredom. This online study examined whether active and passive fatigue can be elicited and differentiated using computerized cognitive tasks. We compared subjective and behavioural outcomes to look for distinctions between fatigue types in response to different cognitive tasks. A sample of 122 participants (53% male; age 30.04 ± 3.50 years) rated their subjective state before and after one of three 8-min cognitive task conditions (TloadDback, Mackworth Clock, Documentary/Control). Next, participants also completed a second cognitive task (Flanker task). The task expected to be actively fatiguing (TloadDback) was rated the most difficult, effortful, and mentally and temporally demanding. The task expected to be passively fatiguing (Mackworth Clock) had the greatest increases in subjective fatigue, boredom, and sleepiness, and the greatest decrease in "want-to" motivation. There were no differences between conditions for Flanker performance. We showed that different fatigue types could be elicited using different computerized cognitive tasks. The passively fatiguing task had the most negative influence on subjective fatigue and motivation, suggesting a nonengaging or "boringly fatiguing" task induces a more detrimental type of fatigue. A key next step is to examine longer cognitive tasks to determine whether effects from different fatigue types become more prominent with time-on-task. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
认知疲劳研究已经确定了认知努力对后续任务表现的负面影响。一个尚未充分研究的问题是，是否存在不同类型的疲劳，特别是：类似于认知疲劳的主动疲劳，以及类似于无聊感的被动疲劳。本在线研究通过计算机化认知任务来检验是否可以诱发和区分主动疲劳和被动疲劳。我们比较了主观和行为结果，以寻找不同认知任务下疲劳类型之间的区别。一项由 122 名参与者（53%为男性；年龄 30.04±3.50 岁）组成的样本，在完成三种 8 分钟认知任务条件（TloadDback、Mackworth Clock、Documentary/Control）之一前后，对其主观状态进行了评分。接下来，参与者还完成了第二个认知任务（Flanker 任务）。预计主动疲劳（TloadDback）的任务难度最大、最费力、最需要心理和时间上的投入。预计被动疲劳（Mackworth Clock）的任务会导致最大的主观疲劳、无聊感和困意增加，以及“想要”动机的最大降低。在 Flanker 表现方面，不同条件之间没有差异。我们表明，使用不同的计算机化认知任务可以诱发不同的疲劳类型。被动疲劳任务对主观疲劳和动机的负面影响最大，这表明不吸引人或“无聊地疲劳”的任务会引起更具危害性的疲劳类型。下一步的关键是检查更长时间的认知任务，以确定不同疲劳类型的影响是否随着任务时间的延长而变得更加明显。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2024 APA，保留所有权利）。
