Sustained vigilance is negatively affected by mild and acute sleep loss reflected by reduced capacity for decision making, motor preparation, and execution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Objectives: The behavioral and cognitive consequences of severe sleep deprivation are well understood. Surprisingly, relatively little is known about the neural correlates of mild and acute sleep restriction on tasks that require sustained vigilance for prolonged periods of time during the day. Methods and Results: Event-related potential (ERP) paradigms can reveal insight into the neural correlates underlying visual processing and behavioral responding that is impaired with reduced alertness, as a consequence of sleep loss. Here, we investigated the impact of reduced vigilance following at-home mild sleep restriction to better understand the associated behavioral consequences and changes in information processing revealed by ERPs. As expected, vigilance was reduced (e.g. increased lapses and response slowing) that increased over the course of the experiment in the "sleep restricted" (5 hr sleep) compared with the "sleep-extension" (9 hr sleep) condition. Corresponding to these lapses, we found decreased positivity of visually evoked potentials in the Sleep Restriction vs. Sleep Extension condition emerging from 316 to 449 ms, maximal over parietal/occipital cortex. We also investigated electrophysiological signs of motor-related processing by comparing lateralized readiness potentials (LRPs) and found reduced positivity of LRPs in the Sleep Restriction vs. Sleep Extension condition at 70-40 ms before, and 115-158 ms after a response was made. Conclusions: These results suggest that even a single night of mild sleep restriction can negatively affect vigilance, reflected by reduced processing capacity for decision making, and dulls motor preparation and execution.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".