The effects of circadian phase, time awake, and imposed sleep restriction on performing complex visual tasks: Evidence from comparative visual search
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive performance not only differs between individuals, but also varies within them, influenced by factors that include sleep-wakefulness and biological time of day (circadian phase). Previous studies have shown that both factors influence accuracy rather than the speed of performing a visual search task, which can be hazardous in safety-critical tasks such as air-traffic control or baggage screening. However, prior investigations used simple, brief search tasks requiring little use of working memory. In order to study the effects of circadian phase, time awake, and chronic sleep restriction on the more realistic scenario of longer tasks requiring the sustained interaction of visual working memory and attentional control, the present study employed two comparative visual search tasks. In these tasks, participants had to detect a mismatch between two otherwise identical object distributions, with one of the tasks (mirror task) requiring an additional mental image transformation. Time awake and circadian phase both had significant influences on the speed, but not the accuracy of task performance. Over the course of three weeks of chronic sleep restriction, speed but not accuracy of task performance was impacted. The results suggest measures for safer performance of important tasks and point out the importance of minimizing the impact of circadian phase and sleep-wake history in laboratory vision experiments.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".