Difference in sleep regulation between morning and evening circadian types as indexed by antero‐posterior analyses of the sleep EEG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Circadian types classify individuals according to their preferred timing for activity and sleep, morning and evening types showing, respectively, early or late preferences. This characteristic has been associated with corresponding differences in circadian sleep propensity. In this study, quantitative analysis of the sleep EEG in antero-posterior derivations was used to test the hypothesis that morning and evening types differ not only in the circadian aspect of sleep regulation but also in the homeostatic aspect. Morning types and evening types (six men and six women per group, aged 19-34 years) were selected using the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire. They were studied by polysomnography according to their preferred sleep schedule. Spectral activity in four midline derivations (Fz, Cz, Pz, Oz) was calculated separately in nonrapid eye movement (NREM) sleep and in rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. In NREM sleep, morning types showed a steeper decrease of slow-wave activity (SWA; 1-5 Hz) per sleep cycle in the fronto-central derivations and a steeper increase in 13-14 Hz activity in the parieto-occipital derivations than did evening types. Nonlinear regression analysis revealed that the exponential decay rate of relative values of SWA in NREM sleep was faster in morning than evening types, in the frontal derivation. In REM sleep, morning types showed a steeper decrease of high sigma (14-16 Hz) and beta (16-24 Hz) activities across the night in centro-parietal derivations than did evening types. These results show for the first time a clear difference between morning types and evening types in homeostatic sleep regulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".