Social influences on mammalian circadian rhythms: animal and human studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While light is considered the dominant stimulus for entraining (synchronizing) mammalian circadian rhythms to local environmental time, social stimuli are also widely cited as 'zeitgebers' (time-cues). This review critically assesses the evidence for social influences on mammalian circadian rhythms, and possible mechanisms of action. Social stimuli may affect circadian behavioural programmes by regulating the phase and period of circadian clocks (i.e. a zeitgeber action, either direct or by conditioning to photic zeitgebers), by influencing daily patterns of light exposure or modulating light input to the clock, or by associative learning processes that utilize circadian time as a discriminative or conditioned stimulus. There is good evidence that social stimuli can act as zeitgebers. In several species maternal signals are the primary zeitgeber in utero and prior to weaning. Adults of some species can also be phase shifted or entrained by single or periodic social interactions, but these effects are often weak, and appear to be mediated by social stimulation of arousal. There is no strong evidence yet for sensory-specific nonphotic inputs to the clock. The circadian phase-dependence of clock resetting to social stimuli or arousal (the 'nonphotic' phase response curve, PRC), where known, is distinct from that to light and similar in diurnal and nocturnal animals. There is some evidence that induction of arousal can modulate light input to the clock, but no studies yet of whether social stimuli can shift the clock by conditioning to photic cues, or be incorporated into the circadian programme by associative learning. In humans, social zeitgebers appear weak by comparison with light. In temporal isolation or under weak light-dark cycles, humans may ignore social cues and free-run independently, although cases of mutual synchrony among two or more group-housed individuals have been reported. Social cues may affect circadian timing by controlling sleep-wake states, but the phase of entrainment observed to fixed sleep-wake schedules in dim light is consistent with photic mediation (scheduled variations in behavioural state necessarily create daily light-dark cycles unless subjects are housed in constant dark or have no eyes). By contrast, discrete exercise sessions can induce phase shifts consistent with the nonphotic PRC observed in animal studies. The best evidence for social entrainment in humans is from a few totally blind subjects who synchronize to the 24 h day, or to near-24 h sleep-wake schedules under laboratory conditions. However, the critical entraining stimuli have not yet been identified, and there are no reported cases yet of social entrainment in bilaterally enucleated blind subjects. The role of social zeitgebers in mammalian behavioural ecology, their mechanisms of action, and their utility for manipulating circadian rhythms in humans, remains to be more fully elaborated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".