Fig 1.
The timing scheme for the Go/NoGo task.
Fig 2.
Driving simulator (left) and TORCS-based [35] driving scenarios (right).
The participant in Fig 2 has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details.
Fig 3.
Flow diagram of the experiment.
Fig 4.
A significant session × group interaction for the subjective ratings of mental fatigue (left), significant differences in the percentage of eye closure (middle) and standard deviation of the lane position (right) between the first 30-min and the last 30-min of the simulated driving task in the driving group.
Error bar indicates ±1 standard deviation. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Fig 5.
Significant session × group interactions for reaction time (left) and the percentage of misses for the Go trials (middle) and no significant differences in the percentage of false alarms for the NoGo trials (right) between the driving and control group or before and after manipulation of mental fatigue.
Error bar indicates ±1 standard deviation. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Fig 6.
Average ERPs at Fz, Cz and Pz sites for Go trails.
Fig 7.
Average ERPs at Fz, Cz and Pz sites for NoGo trails.
Table 1.
The correlation between ERP changes at the Fz site and the changes of mental fatigue indices and behavior performance changes (n = 30, participants in the driving group).
Fig 8.
The correlation analysis between NoGo-P3 amplitude changes at the Fz site and the changes of two mental fatigue indices: POMS scores (left) and SDLP (right).
Fig 9.
The correlation analysis between the changes of miss rate and Go-P3 amplitude changes (left) and NoGo-P3 amplitude changes (right) at the Fz site.
Fig 10.
The correlation analysis between the changes of false alarm and Go-P3 amplitude changes (left) and NoGo-P3 amplitude changes (right) at the Fz site.