Sleep deprivation impairs inhibitory control during wakefulness in adult sleepwalkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleepwalkers often complain of excessive daytime somnolence. Although excessive daytime somnolence has been associated with cognitive impairment in several sleep disorders, very few data exist concerning sleepwalking. This study aimed to investigate daytime cognitive functioning in adults diagnosed with idiopathic sleepwalking. Fifteen sleepwalkers and 15 matched controls were administered the Continuous Performance Test and Stroop Colour-Word Test in the morning after an overnight polysomnographic assessment. Participants were tested a week later on the same neuropsychological battery, but after 25 h of sleep deprivation, a procedure known to precipitate sleepwalking episodes during subsequent recovery sleep. There were no significant differences between sleepwalkers and controls on any of the cognitive tests administered under normal waking conditions. Testing following sleep deprivation revealed significant impairment in sleepwalkers' executive functions related to inhibitory control, as they made more errors than controls on the Stroop Colour-Word Test and more commission errors on the Continuous Performance Test. Sleepwalkers' scores on measures of executive functions were not associated with self-reported sleepiness or indices of sleep fragmentation from baseline polysomnographic recordings. The results support the idea that sleepwalking involves daytime consequences and suggest that these may also include cognitive impairments in the form of disrupted inhibitory control following sleep deprivation. These disruptions may represent a daytime expression of sleepwalking's pathophysiological mechanisms.
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".