Neural Efficiency and Mental Workload

A Neuroergonomics Approach to Mental Workload, Engagement and Human Performance

“…The PFC serves a control function during routine cognitive operations, such as: action selection, retrieval/updating in working memory, monitoring and inhibition (Ramnani and Owen, 2004;Ridderinkhof et al, 2004). It is often activated during high levels of cognitive demand (Ayaz et al, 2012;Herff et al, 2014;Racz et al, 2017;Gateau et al, 2018;Fairclough et al, 2019) and dysfunction of this structure is known to degrade performance (Sandson and Albert, 1984;Dolcos and McCarthy, 2006). However, the PFC is complex and its function is subject to the quadratic influence of neuromodulation via the influence of noradrenaline and dopamine (Arnsten, 2009;Arnsten et al, 2012).…”

“…very low (Hopstaken et al, 2015); similarly, models of behavioral self-regulation (Carver and Scheier, 2000) argue that task goals can be adjusted downward (i.e., lower levels of performance are tolerated as acceptable) or even abandoned if goal attainment is perceived to be impossible. There is evidence that increased likelihood of failure is associated with deactivation of the PFC (Durantin et al, 2014;Ewing et al, 2016;Fairclough et al, 2019), for operational performance where failure can often jeopardize the safety of oneself and others, increased likelihood of failure can also provoke strong emotional responses that are associated with stress and cognitive interference (Sarason et al, 1990), which can function as distractors from task activity in their own right (Dolcos and McCarthy, 2006;Qin et al, 2009;Gärtner et al, 2014).…”

“…Arousal makes an important contribution to the conceptual space illustrated in Figure 2 because it modulates the homeostasis of the executive (see Arnsten, 2009 for a review) and attentional networks (see Coull, 1998 and Aston-Jones and Cohen, 2005 for review) via the dopaminergic and noradrenergic pathways. For instance, both extremes of low (Harrivel et al, 2013;Durantin et al, 2015) and high arousal can disengage the DLPFC (Goldberg et al, 1998;Arnsten, 2009;Qin et al, 2009;Causse et al, 2013;Durantin et al, 2014;Fairclough et al, 2019) and impair performance (see Figure 3 for summary). Similarly, low (Dehais et al, 2018) and high levels of arousal (Hancock and Warm, 1989;Tracy et al, 2000;Pecher et al, 2011) can alter the interactions between the dorsal and ventral attentional networks and indistinctly that lead either to inattentional phenomena (Molloy et al, 2015;Todd et al, 2005) or effort withdrawal (Oei et al, 2012;Dehais et al, 2015).…”

“…Table 1 presents a mapping between extremes of high and low engagement and arousal, their related neurocognitive states and how these states may be operationalized using neurophysiological FIGURE 3 | Left part: Several types of stressors can yield to the deactivation of the DLPFC and in return drastically induce collapse of performance. Right part: An illustration with the N-Back task: the right-DLPFC deactivates when the task demands exceed mental capacity (7-Back condition) and is associated with reduced performance efficacy and effort withdrawal (from Fairclough et al, 2019). measures in the laboratory and the field.…”

“…measures in the laboratory and the field. Monitoring the activation and deactivation of the DLPFC represents a promising generic avenue to predict impaired performance across diverse states such as: mind wandering (Christoff et al, 2009;Harrivel et al, 2013), effort withdrawal (Ayaz et al, 2007;Izzetoglu et al, 2007;Durantin et al, 2014;Modi et al, 2018;Fairclough et al, 2018Fairclough et al, , 2019 and perseveration (Dehais et al, 2019). However, other neurological networks and sites should be considered as part of this analysis.…”