Assessing Cognitive Capacity by P3 During a Complex Manual Control Task

Journal of Psychophysiology, vol. 35, pp. 43–50

Abstract

Abstract. Our aim was to adapt a classical P3 method to assess the free cognitive capacity during spacecraft docking training in space. Electroencephalogram (EEG) measurement in space is limited by several conditions. Based on experience with our own EEG experiments on MIR and ISS, we decided to use dry electrodes and restricted the electrode placement to the forehead. We examined whether P3 can be reliably obtained under these conditions. Subjects had to perform a manually controlled docking task simultaneously with an acoustic monitory task. The P3 component was evoked by the acoustic stimuli of the secondary task. Twenty-six subjects participated in this study, situated in a space simulation on earth. After a familiarization session, they performed the docking tasks at three difficulty levels: low, medium, and difficult. In the secondary task, subjects had to discriminate between a low (750 Hz) and a high (1,000 Hz) tone, which differed in probability of 90% and 10%, respectively. The subjects had to count the high tone and after 10 relevant tones and had to give a voice command to a power supply configuration. P3 amplitude was largest and the latency shortest during the medium difficult task. A decision matrix based on differences between the relevant and irrelevant P3 was calculated for each subject and each task. The results suggest that P3 can be recorded during a complex manual control task and can be used to assess individual free cognitive capacity.

Authors 9

1. Bernd W. Johannes

   Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e. V. (DLR)

   Affiliation as printed

   Institute of Aerospace Medicine, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Cologne, Germany

2. Juri A. Bubeev

   Russian Academy of Sciences · Institute of Biomedical Problems

   Affiliation as printed

   Institute for Biomedical Problems (IBMP) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian Federation State Research Center, Moscow, Russia

3. Tatyana I. Kotrovskaya

   Russian Academy of Sciences · Institute of Biomedical Problems

   Affiliation as printed

   Institute for Biomedical Problems (IBMP) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian Federation State Research Center, Moscow, Russia

4. Sergey Bronnikov

   S. P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation Energia (Russia)

   Affiliation as printed

   S. P Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation “Energia”, Moscow, Russia

   S. P Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation "Energia", Moscow, Russia

5. Sarah Piechowski

   Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e. V. (DLR)

   Affiliation as printed

   Institute of Aerospace Medicine, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Cologne, Germany

6. Eva‐Maria Elmenhorst Aachen Institute for Occupational and Social Medicine

   Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e. V. (DLR) · RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   Institute for Occupational and Social Medicine, Medical Faculty Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

   Institute of Aerospace Medicine, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Cologne, Germany

7. Jörn Rittweger

   University of Cologne

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, University of Cologne, Germany

8. Jens Jordan

   University of Cologne · Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e. V. (DLR)

   Affiliation as printed

   Chair of Aerospace Medicine, University of Cologne, Germany

   Institute of Aerospace Medicine, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Cologne, Germany

9. Anthony W. K. Gaillard

   Tilburg University

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, The Netherlands