{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02378999179655455, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.815642458100559, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Memory-Guided Reaching: Is It Effortful?

We previously showed that perceived effort during visually guided reaching was altered as task demand varied. Further, self-reported subjective fatigue correlated with perceived effort and reach performance under visually guided conditions. Memory-guided reaching often leads to performance deterioration and can provide insights about the planning and control of reach actions. It is unclear how perceived effort changes during memory-guided reaching and whether self-reported subjective fatigue is associated with perceived effort of memory-guided reaching. Twenty-three young adults performed reach actions under visually- and memory-guided conditions. Perceived effort, reaction time, and endpoint error increased significantly from the visually- to the memory-guided condition. Self-reported subjective fatigue was associated with perceived effort and reach distance error during memory-guided reaching; those with higher levels of fatigue reported greater perceived effort and tended to reach farther when visual information was not available. These findings establish a foundation to examine relationships between subjective fatigue, perceived effort, and reach control.