MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4392356362 · doi:10.1242/jeb.246582

Penguins prefer power naps

2024· article· en· W4392356362 sur OpenAlexaff
Sarah J. Young

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueSleep and Wakefulness Research
Établissements canadiensSaint Mary's University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPower (physics)Physics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

If you ask a student, parent or working professional whether they get enough sleep each night, many will laugh at the question. Sufficient rest may seem an impossible goal in the hustle and bustle of modern life, but what if you could achieve the prized 8 hours of sleep without ever sleeping at all? This is, of course, impossible for humans. However, busy penguins never seem to sleep. Chinstrap penguins nest as a colony and in every penguin pair, one parent stays home with their young while the other parent forages to feed the family. As any human parent knows, full-time childcare is tiring work, as is providing for the family. Factor on top of these the necessity for chinstrap penguins to be vigilant against predators and it is obvious that both nesting and foraging penguin parents will need a lot of rest. However, sleeping for hours would put them, and their chicks, at great risk. A new study shows that chinstrap penguins mitigate this trade-off by utilizing a strategy known as microsleeping.Paul-Antoine Libourel (Neuroscience Research Centre of Lyon, France) and colleagues from France, the Republic of Korea and Germany investigated how nesting chinstrap penguins are able to obtain enough rest without sleeping for extended periods of time. The researchers monitored the activity of nesting penguins by filming them and outfitting individuals with wearable motion sensors. The sensors tracked the animal's body posture and sleep stages to identify when the tired penguins nodded off, similar to a human fitness tracker. The research team was particularly interested in slow wave sleep picked up by the sensor, which indicates deep and restorative rest. The team also investigated how sleep quality compares between individuals nesting on the colony's border, who are more vulnerable to predators, and individuals in the center of the colony, who are protected from predation.Libourel and colleagues found that nesting chinstrap penguins attained an incredible total of ∼15 hours of slow wave sleep per day despite never appearing to take a nap. Astonishingly, these hours came from the accumulation of thousands of daily naps that lasted only 4 seconds. Not only that, but most of these naps were not really naps at all. Rather, the penguins were taking microsleeps, where they put one hemisphere of their brain to sleep and close only the associated eye, while concurrently the other hemisphere of the brain, and the other eye, remain wide awake. Both the right and left hemispheres of the brain received a luxurious 11–12 hours of sleep per day. Moreover, contrary to expectation, the team discovered that penguins on the edge of the colony enjoyed longer, deeper and less fragmented sleep than penguins at the center of the colony, suggesting that aggression from penguin peers is more stressful than the risk posed by predators.Microsleeping is an incredible testament to the strategies that animals can employ to balance their physiological and ecological needs. In the case of chinstrap penguins, taking microsleeps allows them to restore their physiological systems while remaining vigilant for threats from predators and peers. The success of the species suggests that, although fragmented, this sleep pattern provides the same large-scale restorative functions as uninterrupted sleep. However, further research is warranted into how the full restorative value of microsleeping compares to that of typical sleep.Although it has long been known that birds experience slow wave sleep in shorter bouts than mammals, Libourel and colleagues’ discovery that chinstrap penguins accumulate 15 hours of sleep daily over thousands of microsleeps that last only 4 seconds is unprecedented. If only human systems could operate this way and allow us to benefit from the many times we've nodded off during boring lectures.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,012
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,041

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0120,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,061
Tête enseignante GPT0,383
Écart entre enseignants0,322 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Experimental Biology→Même sujetSleep and Wakefulness Research→Travaux en français237 207→