Circadian and homeostatic sleep regulation in morningness–eveningness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Morningness-eveningness has been associated with the entrained circadian phase. However, we recently identified morning and evening types having similar circadian phases. In this paper, we compared parameters of slow-wave activity (SWA) decay in non-rapid-eye-movement (NREM) sleep between these two subgroups to test the hypothesis that differences in the dynamics of nocturnal homeostatic sleep pressure could explain differences in sleep timing preference. Twelve morning-type subjects and 12 evening-type subjects with evening types (aged 19-34 years) selected using the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire were further classified according to the phase of their dim light melatonin onset (DLMO). The six morning types with the earliest DLMO were compared to the six evening types with the latest DLMO ('extreme' phases), and the six morning types with the latest DLMO were compared to the six evening types with the earliest DLMO ('intermediate' phases). Subjects slept according to their preferred sleep schedule. Spectral activity in four midline derivations (Fz, Cz, Pz, Oz) was calculated in NREM sleep and an exponential decay function was applied on SWA data averaged per sleep cycle. In the subjects with intermediate circadian phases, both initial level and decay rate of SWA in Fz were significantly higher in morning than in evening types. No difference appeared between chronotypes of extreme circadian phases. There was no correlation between individual estimates of SWA decay and DLMO. These results support the hypothesis that chronotype can originate from differences in the dissipation of sleep pressure and that homeostatic and circadian processes influence the sleep schedule preference independently.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".