CIRCADIAN RHYTHM IN FORCE TRACKING AND IN DUAL TASK COSTS
CIRCADIAN RHYTHM IN FORCE TRACKING AND IN DUAL TASK COSTS
复制标题
DOI：
10.3109/07420521003663793
复制
发表时间：
2010-01-01
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Hermsdoerfer, Joachim
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jasper, Isabelle;Roenneberg, Till;Hermsdoerfer, Joachim
本研究确定了在单任务条件（即单独呈现的跟踪任务）和双任务条件（即跟踪任务与记忆任务一起）下视觉引导跟踪任务期间力控制的昼夜节律。九名健康的年轻男性受试者参加了恒定常规方案，其中包括一周规律就寝时间、基准晚上 8 小时睡眠以及随后 40 小时的清醒时间。受试者执行眼手协调任务，该任务需要通过使用握力来调整对不断变化的目标的视觉反馈来跟踪不可预测的目标（显示在计算机屏幕上）。跟踪性能（精度和延迟）是特定于一天中特定时间的，其中 04:00 左右性能最差。双任务成本作为同时执行的两个任务的干扰指标，仅显示出记忆任务在昼夜节律最小值期间对跟踪精度的显着影响。相比之下，双重任务成本在中午接近于零，并且不存在跟踪延迟。跟踪精度描述性地揭示了个体间的差异：一半受试者在40小时清醒期间保持相当稳定的表现，而另一半则在跟踪精度方面表现出明显的昼夜节律性。因此，跟踪精度似乎是昼夜节律最小值期间注意力分散和个体间变异条件的敏感参数，而跟踪延迟既没有揭示任务条件的二分性，也没有揭示会话期间表现幅度的个体间差异。尽管如此，跟踪精度和延迟都显示出类似的昼夜节律。 （作者通讯：Isabelle.Jasper@extern.lrz-muenchen.de）
The present study determined a circadian rhythm in force control during a visually guided tracking task under single task conditions (i.e., tracking task presented alone) and dual task conditions (i.e., tracking task together with a memory task). Nine healthy young male subjects participated in a Constant Routine protocol involving a week of regular bedtimes, a baseline night of 8 h sleep, and subsequent wakefulness of 40 h. Subjects performed an eye-hand coordination task that required tracking an unpredictable target (presented on a computer screen) by using grip force to adjust a visual feedback to the changing target. Tracking performance (both in precision and delay) were time-of-day-specific with worst performance at around 04:00 h. The dual task costs, as an index of interference of two tasks performed simultaneously, only showed a significant effect of the memory task on tracking precision during the circadian minimum. In contrast, dual task costs were close to zero during midday and absent in tracking delay. Tracking precision descriptively revealed inter-individual differences:half of the subjects maintained fairly stable performance during the 40 h of wakefulness, whereas the other half showed a clear circadian rhythmicity in tracking precision. Thus, tracking precision seems to be a sensitive parameter for conditions of divided attention and inter-individual variability during the circadian minimum, whereas tracking delay revealed neither a dichotomy of task conditions nor inter-individual differences in performance-amplitude over sessions. Nonetheless, both tracking precision and delay showed a comparable circadian rhythmicity. (Author correspondence: Isabelle.Jasper@extern.lrz-muenchen.de)