A Pattern of Brain Waves in Response to Induced Stress with Different Cognitive Readiness

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

2 Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

10.30491/ijbs.2022.351160.1826

Abstract

Introduction: Many unpredictable situations require the use of cognitive and emotional resources, but stress prevents adaptation to the situation and cognitive readiness claims to create this adaptation. Therefore, the aim of this research is to compare the brain wave patterns with different cognitive readiness in two situations with and without stress.
Method: The present research is of a causal-comparative that the statistical population included military personnel, who volunteered to participate in the research. The participants included 42 people who were placed in two groups of low and high cognitive readiness. The level of cognitive readiness of all people was done using situation simulation and Virtual Reality. The electroencephalography of subjects was recorded in two situations. Data were analyzed using the MANCOVA test.
Results: Brain waves have significant differences between the two groups, and the intensity of the waves in the group with low cognitive readiness is more than the other group, which shows brain activity to react to stress in the group with low cognitive readiness is more than the other group (p<0.01).
Conclusion: Physiological and neurological indicators can be considered important for military applications. This is because finding physiological characteristics with sufficient accuracy can be reliable evidence for selecting military personnel or checking the effectiveness of psychological.

Keywords


  1. Oreshkin NB, Shlykov YN, Shevchenko BA, Kostikova LP, Belogurov AY, editors. Tolerance of Ambiguity of Cadets in the Military School. 3rd International Conference on Culture, Education and Economic Development of Modern Society (ICCESE 2019); 2019: Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/iccese-19.2019.180
  2. Crameri L, Hettiarachchi I, Hanoun S. A review of individual operational cognitive readiness: theory development and future directions. Human factors. 2021;63(1):66-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819868409
  3. Minelle F. Cognitive readiness in project teams: Reducing project complexity and increasing success in project management. Cognitive readiness in project teams: Reducing project complexity and increasing success in project management. 2019:45-6. http://digital.casalini.it/10.3280/PM2019-039011
  4. Fletcher J, Wind AP. The evolving definition of cognitive readiness for military operations. Teaching and measuring cognitive readiness: Springer; 2014. p. 25-52. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-7579-8_2
  5. Laarni J, Pakarinen S, Bordi M, Kallinen K, Närväinen J, Kortelainen H, et al., editors. Promoting soldier cognitive readiness for battle tank operations through bio-signal measurements. International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics; 2019: Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20473-0_15
  6. Fatkin LT, Patton D. Mitigating the effects of stress through cognitive readiness. Performance under stress: CRC Press; 2018. p. 225-46.
  7. Biggs A, Brough P, Drummond S. Lazarus and Folkman’s psychological stress and coping theory. The handbook of stress and health: A guide to research and practice. 2017:351-64.
  8. Bogdanov M, Nitschke JP, LoParco S, Bartz JA, Otto AR. Acute psychosocial stress increases cognitive-effort avoidance. Psychological Science. 2021;32(9):1463-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211005465
  9. Conkright WR, Beckner ME, Sinnott AM, Eagle SR, Martin BJ, Lagoy AD, et al. Neuromuscular performance and hormonal responses to military operational stress in men and women. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2021;35(5):1296-305. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004013
  10. Agrawal S, Peeta S. Evaluating the impacts of situational awareness and mental stress on takeover performance under conditional automation. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour. 2021;83:210-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.10.002
  11. Okide CC, Eseadi C, Ezenwaji IO, Ede MO, Igbo RO, Koledoye UL, et al. Effect of a critical thinking intervention on stress management among undergraduates of adult education and extramural studies programs. Medicine. 2020; 9(35): 99-105. ~$BS.Vol16.N3.04.1826.docx
  12. Conkright WR, O’Leary TJ, Wardle SL, Greeves JP, Beckner ME, Nindl BC. Sex differences in the physical performance, physiological, and psycho-cognitive responses to military operational stress. European Journal of Sport Science 2022; 22(1): 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2021.1916082
  13. Biasiucci A, Franceschiello B, Murray MM. Electroencephalography. Current Biology. 2019;29(3):R80-R5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.11.052
  14. Song T, Zheng W, Song P, Cui Z. EEG emotion recognition using dynamical graph convolutional neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing. 2018;11(3):532-41. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2018.2817622
  15. Hedges LV, Vevea JL. Selection method approaches. Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments. 2005:145-74. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470870168
  16. O'Neil HF, Perez RS, Baker EL. Teaching and measuring cognitive readiness: Springer; 2014. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4614-7579-8
  17. Muñoz JE, Pope AT, Velez LE. Integrating biocybernetic adaptation in virtual reality training concentration and calmness in target shooting. Physiological computing systems: Springer; 2016. p. 218-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27950-9_12
  18. Noack H, Nolte L, Nieratschker V, Habel U, Derntl B. Imaging stress: an overview of stress induction methods in the MR scanner. Journal of Neural Transmission. 2019;126(9):1187-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-018-01965-y
  19. Shields GS. Stress and cognition: A user’s guide to designing and interpreting studies. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2020;112:104475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.104475