## 3 Experimental Results
### P300
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Task Type**}} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Tial Type**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**P300 Mean Amplitude (\(\mu\)V)**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**P300 Peak Latency (ms)**} \\ \cline{3-8} \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Frontal**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Frontal**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Frontal**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Frontal**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Frontal**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Frontal**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Frontal**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Frontal**} \\ \cline{3-8} \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & & **Region** & **Region** & **Region** & **Region** & **Region** & **Region** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Non-Fatigue State} & \multirow{3}{*}{Simple} & Pre- & 4.442 \(\pm\) 2.70 & 2.753 \(\pm\) 2.24 & 2.668 \(\pm\) 2.19 & 381 \(\pm\) 14 & 377 \(\pm\) 15 & 380 \(\pm\) 15 \\  & & Interruption & 5.137 \(\pm\) 4.24 & 2.796 \(\pm\) 2.61 & 3.421 \(\pm\) 2.61 & 378 \(\pm\) 15 & 381 \(\pm\) 14 & 387 \(\pm\) 12 \\  & & Recovery & 5.706 \(\pm\) 3.61 & 2.922 \(\pm\) 2.89 & 3.794 \(\pm\) 3.73 & 381 \(\pm\) 14 & 386 \(\pm\) 12 & 390 \(\pm\) 10 \\ \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{3}{*}{Complex} & Pre- & 5.807 \(\pm\) 4.42 & 3.195 \(\pm\) 3.36 & 3.350 \(\pm\) 3.28 & 388 \(\pm\) 13 & 379 \(\pm\) 15 & 381 \(\pm\) 14 \\  & & Interruption & 6.253 \(\pm\) 5.32 & 3.884 \(\pm\) 3.59 & 3.709 \(\pm\) 2.68 & 379 \(\pm\) 16 & 379 \(\pm\) 15 & 385 \(\pm\) 13 \\  & & Recovery & 6.400 \(\pm\) 5.87 & 4.743 \(\pm\) 4.29 & 4.643 \(\pm\) 2.97 & 379 \(\pm\) 16 & 385 \(\pm\) 11 & 388 \(\pm\) 14 \\ \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{3}{*}{Pause} & Pre- & 3.706 \(\pm\) 3.61 & 3.363 \(\pm\) 3.42 & 3.907 \(\pm\) 3.72 & 384 \(\pm\) 13 & 385 \(\pm\) 14 & 386 \(\pm\) 14 \\  & & Recovery & 3.584 \(\pm\) 2.95 & 2.999 \(\pm\) 2.71 & 3.420 \(\pm\) 2.57 & 384 \(\pm\) 13 & 387 \(\pm\) 12 & 389 \(\pm\) 13 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Fatigue State} & \multirow{3}{*}{Simple} & Pre- & 6.162 \(\pm\) 5.58 & 2.790 \(\pm\) 3.00 & 3.475 \(\pm\) 3.05 & 385 \(\pm\) 13 & 379 \(\pm\) 16 & 378 \(\pm\) 15 \\  & & Interruption & 5.887 \(\pm\) 5.53 & 3.422 \(\pm\) 2.50 & 3.735 \(\pm\) 3.05 & 376 \(\pm\) 16 & 385 \(\pm\) 14 & 387 \(\pm\) 13 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Recovery & 5.221 \(\pm\) 3.75 & 4.355 \(\pm\) 2.45 & 3.882 \(\pm\) 1.78 & 382 \(\pm\) 15 & 386 \(\pm\) 12 & 391 \(\pm\) 8 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{3}{*}{Complex} & Pre- & 8.138 \(\pm\) 8.91 & 3.460 \(\pm\) 3.00 & 3.916 \(\pm\) 3.73 & 386 \(\pm\) 12 & 379 \(\pm\) 14 & 380 \(\pm\) 16 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Interruption & 7.486 \(\pm\) 5.30 & 5.004 \(\pm\) 3.88 & 3.912 \(\pm\) 2.55 & 383 \(\pm\) 14 & 382 \(\pm\) 13 & 388 \(\pm\) 11 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Recovery & 7.311 \(\pm\) 4.70 & 5.070 \(\pm\) 3.36 & 3.981 \(\pm\) 2.39 & 381 \(\pm\) 14 & 386 \(\pm\) 14 & 388 \(\pm\) 13 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{3}{*}{Pause} & Pre- & 5.176 \(\pm\) 3.82 & 2.796 \(\pm\) 6.67 & 3.427 \(\pm\) 2.99 & 384 \(\pm\) 14 & 385 \(\pm\) 13 & 380 \(\pm\) 16 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Recovery & 4.148 \(\pm\) 3.76 & 5.753 \(\pm\) 3.19 & 2.991 \(\pm\) 5.41 & 382 \(\pm\) 15 & 386 \(\pm\) 15 & 390 \(\pm\) 12 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Descriptive statistics results of mean P300 amplitude and peak latency (mean \(\pm\) standard deviation). In the frontal region, trial type had a significant main effect on P300 mean amplitude, and showed a significant interaction with fatigue state (\(F(2,445)=6.002,\)\(p<0.01\), \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.163\)). Further analysis revealed significant differences in P300 amplitudes across trial types under fatigue (\(F(1,222)=10.058,\)\(p=0.004\), \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.069\)), with a notable decline in the recovery trials. Similarly, P300 peak latency showed significant differences across trial types in the fatigue condition (\(F(1,222)=5.264,\)\(p=0.014\), \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.026\)), indicating that fatigue inhibited the redistribution of attention and cognitive resources between trials.