Sleep Extension before Sleep Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the effects of six nights of sleep extension on motor performance and associated neuromuscular function before and after one night of total sleep deprivation (TSD). METHODS: Twelve healthy men participated in two experimental conditions (randomized crossover design): extended sleep (EXT, 9.8 ± 0.1 h time in bed) and habitual sleep (HAB, 8.2 ± 0.1 h time in bed). In each condition, subjects performed six nights of either EXT or HAB at home followed by an assessment of motor performance and neuromuscular function at baseline (D0) and after one night of TSD, i.e., 34-37 h of continuous wakefulness (D1). Maximal voluntary contractions with superimposed femoral nerve electrical and transcranial magnetic stimulations and stimulations on relaxed muscles were investigated before and after submaximal isometric knee extensor exercises performed until task failure. RESULTS: Time to exhaustion was longer in EXT compared with HAB (+3.9% ± 7.7% and +8.1% ± 12.3% at D0 and D1, respectively). Performance at D1 decreased from D0 similarly between conditions (-7.2% ± 5.6% and -3.7% ± 7.3% in HAB and EXT, respectively). At D1, the RPE during exercise was lower in EXT compared with HAB (-7.2% ± 7.5%) with no difference at D0. No difference was observed in voluntary activation between the two conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Six nights of sleep extension improved sustained contraction time to exhaustion, and this result cannot be explained by smaller reductions in voluntary activation, measured by both nerve and transcranial magnetic stimulation. The beneficial effect on motor performance in the EXT condition was likely due to reduced RPE after TSD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".