0230 Mild and Acute Sleep Loss Negatively Impacts Vigilance Reflected by Reduced Neural Sensory Processing, Motor Preparation and Execution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The behavioural and cognitive consequences of severe sleep deprivation are well understood. Surprisingly, relatively little is known about the EEG correlates of mild and acute sleep restriction during tasks demanding sustained vigilance for prolonged periods of time during the day. Event-related potential (ERP) paradigms can reveal insight into the neural correlates of sensory processing and behavior that is impaired with reduced alertness as a consequence of sleep loss. Here, we investigated the impact of reduced vigilance following mild sleep restriction (vs. well-rested) to better understand the associated behavioural consequences and changes in information processing revealed by EEG. Eighteen participants (age 20–26, median=21) were instructed to sleep from 1-6am in the “sleep restricted” (SR) condition, or from 12-9am in the “normal sleep” (NS) condition, verified via actigraphy. Following each night, participants completed 6 sessions of 100 trials of the Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) with simultaneous EEG recording. All testing was completed between 1-3pm (during the circadian trough). More lapses occurred and responses slowed in the SR vs. NS condition (F(1,17)=8.89,p=0.008; F(1,17)=4.78,p=0.043). Lapses increased and responses slowed over the course of the 6 sessions (F(5,85)=10.05,p<0.001; F(5,85)=4.49,p=0.001). A similar pattern was observed for subjective sleepiness. We compared visually-evoked potentials (VEP) in SR vs. NS and found differences at 316–449 ms, maximal at parietal/occipital cortex. We also investigated electrophysiological signs of motor-related processing by comparing lateralized readiness potentials (LRP), and found reduced LRPs in the fastest responses in the SR vs. NS condition at 70-40ms before, and 115-158ms after a response was made. As expected, vigilance was reduced (e.g., increased lapses, response slowing) following mild and acute SR. Late VEPs were reduced after SR, as was motor-related LRPs for the fastest reaction times. These results suggest that even a single night of mild sleep restriction can negatively impact vigilance, reflected by reduced sensory processing capacity, and dulls motor preparation and execution. Research support from NSERC Engage and Engage Plus grants to SF and ACS-Corp.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".