Sleep Spindles and Intellectual Ability: Epiphenomenon or Directly Related?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep spindles-short, phasic, oscillatory bursts of activity that characterize non-rapid eye movement sleep-are one of the only electrophysiological oscillations identified as a biological marker of human intelligence (e.g., cognitive abilities commonly assessed using intelligence quotient tests). However, spindles are also important for sleep maintenance and are modulated by circadian factors. Thus, the possibility remains that the relationship between spindles and intelligence quotient may be an epiphenomenon of a putative relationship between good quality sleep and cognitive ability or perhaps modulated by circadian factors such as morningness-eveningness tendencies. We sought to ascertain whether spindles are directly or indirectly related to cognitive abilities using mediation analysis. Here, we show that fast (13.5-16 Hz) parietal but not slow (11-13.5 Hz) frontal spindles in both non-rapid eye movement stage 2 sleep and slow wave sleep are directly related to reasoning abilities (i.e., cognitive abilities that support "fluid intelligence," such as the capacity to identify complex patterns and relationships and the use of logic to solve novel problems) but not verbal abilities (i.e., cognitive abilities that support "crystalized intelligence"; accumulated knowledge and experience) or cognitive abilities that support STM (i.e., the capacity to briefly maintain information in an available state). The relationship between fast spindles and reasoning abilities is independent of the indicators of sleep maintenance and circadian chronotype, thus suggesting that spindles are indeed a biological marker of cognitive abilities and can serve as a window to further explore the physiological and biological substrates that give rise to human intelligence.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".