Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Psychology, International Medical University, Bukit Jalil, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • 2 School of Psychology, University of Nottingham Malaysia, Semenyih, Selangor, Malaysia
  • 3 Department of Biochemistry, International Medical University, Bukit Jalil, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • 4 Department of Physiology, International Medial University, Bukit Jalil, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
PeerJ, 2023;11:e15744.
PMID: 37637168 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15744

Abstract

Mental fatigue has shown to be one of the root causes of decreased productivity and overall cognitive performance, by decreasing an individual's ability to inhibit responses, process information and concentrate. The effects of mental fatigue have led to occupational errors and motorway accidents. Early detection of mental fatigue can prevent the escalation of symptoms that may lead to chronic fatigue syndrome and other disorders. To date, in clinical settings, the assessment of mental fatigue and stress is done through self-reported questionnaires. The validity of these questionnaires is questionable, as they are highly subjective measurement tools and are not immune to response biases. This review examines the wider presence of mental fatigue in the general population and critically compares its various detection techniques (i.e., self-reporting questionnaires, heart rate variability, salivary cortisol levels, electroencephalogram, and saccadic eye movements). The ability of these detection tools to assess inhibition responses (which are sensitive enough to be manifested in a fatigue state) is specifically evaluated for a reliable marker in identifying mentally fatigued individuals. In laboratory settings, antisaccade tasks have been long used to assess inhibitory control and this technique can potentially serve as the most promising assessment tool to objectively detect mental fatigue. However, more studies need to be conducted in the future to validate and correlate this assessment with other existing measures of mental fatigue detection. This review is intended for, but not limited to, mental health professionals, digital health scientists, vision researchers, and behavioral scientists.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.