• Isabelle Jasper, Till Roenneberg, Andreas Häussler, Andreas Zierdt, Christian Marquardt, and Joachim Hermsdörfer.
• Clinical Neuropsychology Research Group (EKN), Clinic for Neuropsychology, München-Bogenhausen Hospital, Munich, Germany. Isabelle.Jasper@extern.lrzmuenchen.de
• Chronobiol. Int. 2010 May 1; 27 (3): 653-73.

AbstractThe present study determined a circadian rhythm in force control during a visually guided tracking task under single task conditions (i.e., tracking task presented alone) and dual task conditions (i.e., tracking task together with a memory task). Nine healthy young male subjects participated in a Constant Routine protocol involving a week of regular bedtimes, a baseline night of 8 h sleep, and subsequent wakefulness of 40 h. Subjects performed an eye-hand coordination task that required tracking an unpredictable target (presented on a computer screen) by using grip force to adjust a visual feedback to the changing target. Tracking performance (both in precision and delay) were time-of-day-specific with worst performance at around 04:00 h. The dual task costs, as an index of interference of two tasks performed simultaneously, only showed a significant effect of the memory task on tracking precision during the circadian minimum. In contrast, dual task costs were close to zero during midday and absent in tracking delay. Tracking precision descriptively revealed inter-individual differences: half of the subjects maintained fairly stable performance during the 40 h of wakefulness, whereas the other half showed a clear circadian rhythmicity in tracking precision. Thus, tracking precision seems to be a sensitive parameter for conditions of divided attention and inter-individual variability during the circadian minimum, whereas tracking delay revealed neither a dichotomy of task conditions nor inter-individual differences in performance-amplitude over sessions. Nonetheless, both tracking precision and delay showed a comparable circadian rhythmicity.

12 keywords...

hide…