Psychomotor Vigilance Task Performance During and Following Chronic Sleep Restriction in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Chronic sleep restriction (CSR) impairs sustained attention in humans, as commonly assessed with the psychomotor vigilance task (PVT). To further investigate the mechanisms underlying performance deficits during CSR, we examined the effect of CSR on performance on a rat version of PVT (rPVT). DESIGN: Adult male rats were trained on a rPVT that required them to press a bar when they detected irregularly presented, brief light stimuli, and were then tested during CSR. CSR consisted of 100 or 148 h of continuous cycles of 3-h sleep deprivation (using slowly rotating wheels) alternating with a 1-h sleep opportunity (3/1 protocol). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: After 28 h of CSR, the latency of correct responses and the percentages of lapses and omissions increased, whereas the percentage of correct responses decreased. Over 52-148 h of CSR, all performance measures showed partial or nearly complete recovery, and were at baseline levels on the first or second day after CSR. There were large interindividual differences in the magnitude of performance impairment during CSR, suggesting differential vulnerability to the effects of sleep loss. Wheel-running controls showed no changes in performance. CONCLUSIONS: A 28-h period of the 3/1 chronic sleep restriction (CSR) protocol disrupted performance on a sustained attention task in rats, as sleep deprivation does in humans. Performance improved after longer periods of CSR, suggesting allostatic adaptation, contrary to some reports of progressive deterioration in psychomotor vigilance task performance during CSR in humans. However, as observed in humans, there were individual differences among rats in the vulnerability of their attention performance to CSR.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".