Mental fatigue impairs visuomotor response time in badminton players and controls

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101579Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Badminton players have a superior visuomotor performance compared to controls.

  • Mental fatigue impairs sport-specific visuomotor performance.

  • Badminton players are not more resistant to mental fatigue than controls.

  • Task switching-ability was deteriorated by mental fatigue.

Abstract

Purpose

It has recently been reported that professional road cyclists have superior inhibitory control and resistance to mental fatigue compared to recreational cyclists. We sought to assess whether badminton players also have superior executive functions and whether they are more resistant to mental fatigue than controls on a visuomotor task.

Methods

Eleven healthy controls (mean ± SD; age: 25±4y; 6 females, 5 males) and nine healthy badminton players (age: 23±3y; 4 females, 5 males) performed two experimental trials in a randomized crossover order. Participants completed a baseline visuomotor task, followed by a Flanker task. Next, they performed either a 90-min Stroop task (MF) or watched a 90-min documentary (CON). Immediately thereafter, the Flanker task and the visuomotor task were completed again. Multiple physiological and psychological measures were assessed during the protocol.

Results

Badminton players’ and controls’ accuracy during the Stroop task decreased over time (p = 0.023). Subjectively, both groups perceived the Stroop task as more mentally demanding than the documentary (p < 0.001). In addition, higher mental fatigue was perceived in MF compared to CON, independently from group (p = 0.029). In the visuomotor task, controls as well as badminton players reacted significantly slower to the complex stimuli when mentally fatigued (~7%; p < 0.001). Badminton players (1109 ± 251 ms) outperformed controls (1299 ± 227 ms; p = 0.022) in the visuomotor task. However, this was not the case in the Stroop and Flanker task; in terms of accuracy and response time, badminton players and controls performed similarly.

Conclusion

These findings provide evidence that badminton players have better visuomotor response time than controls. However, they do not seem to be more resistant to the negative effects of mental fatigue on open skill-visuomotor performance. Furthermore, our study suggests that cognitive tasks with a larger motor component, such as our visuomotor task, are more sensitive to the negative effects of mental fatigue than traditional cognitive tasks (e.g. Flanker task) that have a very small motor component.

Introduction

Mental fatigue can impair multiple visuomotor related skills in sport-specific (Duncan, Fowler, George, Joyce, & Hankey, 2015; Le Mansec, Pageaux, Nordez, Dorel, & Jubeau, 2017; Smith et al., 2016; Veness, Patterson, Jeffries, & Waldron, 2017) and non-sport-specific settings (Behrens et al., 2017; Lew & Qu, 2014). In addition, Smith et al. (2016), Le Mansec et al. (2017) and Veness et al. (2017) observed that also within trained (ranging from moderately trained to elite) athletes mental fatigue has a negative effect on sport-specific visuomotor related skills. For example, Smith et al. (2016) used the Loughborough Soccer Passing and Shooting Test with experienced soccer players and found that their shot speed and accuracy decreased when mentally fatigued. Similarly, Le Mansec et al. (2017) found that ball speed decreased and number of faults increased in mentally fatigued table tennis players who play at regional-national level in France.

These findings are in accordance with the effect of mental fatigue on endurance performance in endurance trained athletes (Van Cutsem, Marcora, et al., 2017). Based on these results, one would conclude trained/elite athletes are not immune to mental fatigue-induced impairments in sport performance. However, given the cross-over nature of all these studies, we should be careful whilst drawing conclusions. Trained/elite athletes might still be more resistant to mental fatigue than untrained individuals. In literature it has already been suggested that genetic and/or environmental (i.e. training effects) factors could underlie an athlete’s greater resistance to mental fatigue-associated physical performance impairments (Martin et al., 2016). Evaluating whether athletic status moderates the resistance to mental fatigue is of importance. On the one hand, it allows to determine the factors that may contribute to successful sport performance, while on the other hand it provides further insights to the mechanisms underlying the detrimental effect of mental fatigue on sport performance.

In endurance sport, Martin et al. (2016) was the first to design a study to specifically assess whether a certain level of training had any influence on the effect of mental fatigue. Interestingly, they found that professional cyclists exhibited superior performance during a 30-min Stroop task compared to recreational cyclists, which is indicative of stronger inhibitory control. Moreover, professional cyclists displayed a greater resistance to the negative effects of mental fatigue on a 20-min cycling time trial compared to recreational cyclists (Martin et al., 2016). Following this first study, Clark et al. (2019) also attempted to determine whether athletic status influences the effect of mental fatigue on cycling performance. Clark et al. (2019) found that a 6-min cycling time trial performance in both untrained men and non-professional highly trained individuals with a history of competition in a variety of sports was unaffected by mental fatigue. Unfortunately, as in the study of Martin et al. (2016), a similar 30-min prolonged cognitive task was used to induce mental fatigue. The choice for a rather short mentally fatiguing task (i.e. in mental fatigue-literature tasks of 90 min or more are often used (Van Cutsem, Marcora, et al., 2017)) in the study of Clark et al. (2019) might explain why they were not able to observe changes in multiple markers of mental fatigue. Clark et al. (2019) did not find any decline in performance during the prolonged cognitive task, nor an increase in subjective mental fatigue post the cognitive task. In addition, a mental fatigue-associated drop in frontal cortex oxygenation (i.e. a drop in Δ[HbO2] (Ahn, Nguyen, Jang, Kim, & Jun 2016; Li et al., 2009)) was not observed. As such, Clark and colleagues themselves express their uncertainty whether they were successful in inducing mental fatigue in the first place (Clark et al., 2019). This is a limitation that is also put forward in the study of Martin et al. (2016), and that might be caused by the relatively short period of increased mental load. The duration of the mental load is thought to be an important factor to successfully induce mental fatigue (Van Cutsem, Marcora, et al., 2017). In their systematic review on mental fatigue and physical performance, Van Cutsem et al., 2017, Van Cutsem et al., 2017, Van Cutsem et al., 2017 already argued that at least 30 min of mental load is necessary to result in mental fatigue and that longer tasks appear to induce more severe mental fatigue. Moreover, a recent study by Fortes et al. (2019) also appears to support this statement. Fortes et al. (2019) observed that 30 min and 45 min, but not 15 min, of smartphone use impaired decision-making during a soccer game in soccer athletes.

Apart from the discussion whether both Martin et al. (2016) and Clark et al. (2019) did succeed in inducing mental fatigue, the role of training level in moderating the effect of mental fatigue on endurance performance suggested by Martin et al. (2016) does not seem to be confirmed by the study of Clark et al. (2019). This discrepant outcome could be due to the fact that Clark et al. (2019) used a 6-min preload (i.e. a constant work rate-part) followed by a 6-min high intensity time trial to assess endurance performance. This preload may have had a restorative effect on the mental fatigue state (Van Cutsem, De Pauw, Buyse, et al., 2017). A second potential reason why the study of Clark et al. (2019) could not confirm the results of Martin et al. (2016) is that the genetic and/or environmental factors that are put forward by Martin et al. (2016), are in fact not moderating factors of this mental fatigue-effect. Clearly more research is necessary on this topic.

Therefore, we sought to assess whether open skill-athletes (i.e. required to react in a dynamically changing, unpredictable and externally-paced environment) might, like cyclists, be more resistant to mental fatigue than untrained individuals (i.e. controls). In order to do so, the effect of a 90-min mentally fatiguing task on an open skill-visuomotor task (visuomotor task; i.e. a test where a lunge movement combined with an arm extension is required) was examined in both badminton players and controls. Several studies demonstrated that sport-specific visuomotor related skills are impaired in trained athletes when mentally fatigued (Le Mansec et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2016; Veness et al., 2017). However, it is still plausible that visuomotor performance in trained athletes is less affected by mental fatigue. Most of the genetic and/or environmental (e.g. the lifestyle of professional athletes) factors that are put forward by Martin et al. (2016) to increase the resistance to mental fatigue in endurance athletes also apply to other types of athletes (e.g. open skill). Subsequently, these factors could cause open skill athletes to be more mental fatigue-resistant as well. We hypothesized that mental fatigue would negatively affect performance on the visuomotor task in controls, while badminton players would demonstrate greater resistance and be less/not affected by mental fatigue (Martin et al., 2016). In addition it was expected that badminton players would outperform controls on the visuomotor task as well as on the Stroop task (Martin et al., 2016).

Section snippets

Participants and ethical approval

An a priori sample size calculation based on the results reported in the study of Martin et al. (2016) (reported effect size of the interaction between condition and group was ηp2 = 0.293) revealed – with α set at 0.05 and an actual power of 0.85 – that a total of 8 participants were needed in each group to observe a similar interaction effect. Twelve healthy controls and ten healthy badminton players volunteered to participate in this study, and eventually, eleven healthy controls (mean ± SD;

Manipulation checks

All participants except two (1 control and 1 badminton player) reached the required minimum performance level of 70% in one of the two first time intervals during the Stroop task and were included in the data-analysis.

Discussion

To our knowledge this is the first study that assessed the effect of mental fatigue on open skill-visuomotor performance in badminton players and controls. The most important findings were: (I) Badminton players demonstrated a superior visuomotor performance compared to controls; (II) Mental fatigue decreased open skill-visuomotor performance in controls as well as badminton players.

Conclusion

These findings provide evidence that badminton players have better visuomotor response time than controls. However, they do not seem to be more resistant to the negative effects of mental fatigue on open skill-visuomotor performance. Both badminton players and controls responded on average 7% slower on the complex stimuli in the visuomotor task compared to baseline in MF. Furthermore, this study suggests that cognitive tasks with a larger motor component, such as the visuomotor task, are more

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflicts of interest

No conflict of interest is declared by the authors.

Acknowledgements

The authors declare that the results of the study are presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. We would like to thank the participants for their engagement in this study. We also thank the master thesis students Olivia Charels, Melissa Evenepoel, Aron Ringoot, Karen Roofthoofd, Benjamin Vermeulen, Bram Laes, Jannes Nicodème and Cedric Demaerschalck for their help with the data acquisition.

References (32)

  • T. Hülsdünker et al.

    Neural correlates of expert visuomotor performance in badminton players

    Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

    (2016)
  • O. Kohlisch et al.

    Physiological changes during computer tasks: Responses to mental load or to motor demands?

    Ergonomics

    (1996)
  • R. Kurzban et al.

    An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance

    Behavioral and Brain Sciences

    (2013)
  • Y. Le Mansec et al.

    Mental fatigue alters the speed and the accuracy of the ball in table tennis

    Journal of Sports Science

    (2017)
  • F.L. Lew et al.

    Effects of mental fatigue on biomechanics of slips

    Ergonomics

    (2014)
  • D. van der Linden et al.

    The impact of mental fatigue on exploration in a complex computer task: Rigidity and loss of systematic strategies

    Human Factors

    (2003)
  • Cited by (32)

    • A drop in cognitive performance, whodunit? Subjective mental fatigue, brain deactivation or increased parasympathetic activity? It's complicated!

      2022, Cortex
      Citation Excerpt :

      In order to promote engagement and avoid boredom participants were given the choice: 1 chapter from (A) and 1 disc “ooggetuigen” from (C) or 1 disc from (B), for a total of 90 min. These documentaries were chosen based on their emotionally neutral, yet engaging content and have been used in several other mental fatigue-studies (Van Cutsem et al., 2019; Verschueren et al., 2020). Subjective psychological assessment took place throughout the protocol (see Fig. 1) with success and intrinsic motivation scales, the Brunel Mood Scale (BRUMS), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index [NASA-TLX (Hart & Staveland, 1988)] and a visual analogue scale (0–100) to assess mental fatigue (M-VAS), motivation (MOTI-VAS) and attention (A-VAS).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text