The role of the spindle in human information processing of high‐intensity stimuli during sleep
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep spindles are 12-14 Hz oscillations in EEG, which are thought to inhibit or 'gate' information processing. Event-related potentials may be employed to probe the extent of information processing during sleep. Previous research indicates that event-related potentials elicited by moderate intensity stimuli show increased positivity (or further removal of negativity) when stimuli are presented concurrent with spindles. However, the effectiveness of spindles to inhibit the processing of much louder stimuli remains unknown. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the extent of this gating, by using a range of stimuli including those that are loud and intrusive. Eight good sleepers were recorded during a single night. Auditory stimuli were delivered randomly at 0, 60, 80 or 100 dB SPL. Trials were sorted off-line by sleep stage, stimulus intensity and spindle characteristic (i.e. spindle absent, spindle present). During the sleep-onset period, the often-reported changes in event-related potentials were observed - N1 decreased and P2 increased in amplitude. In Stage 2 sleep, P2 was affected by the presence of spindles, particularly when stimulus intensity was loud. Its amplitude was greatest when spindles occurred following the onset of the stimulus. Scalp-recorded spindles might, therefore, be a consequence of the prior thalamic inhibition of information processing, especially when confronted by loud, intrusive external stimuli.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it