Effect of sleep restriction on somatosensory sensitivity in the oro‐facial area: An experimental controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No studies have addressed the effect of SR on somatosensory function in the oro-facial area. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of sleep restriction (SR) on the somatosensory perception of the tip of the tongue. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a crossover study design, 13 healthy participants took part in a random order, to a two arms experiments: the SR and control/no SR-arms. For all participants, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) was used to assess sleepiness and mechanical sensitivity, and pain detection threshold was estimated at the tongue tip and right thumb (as a body area control site). In the SR-arm of the study, on day one, we estimated sensory baseline perception and repeated tests on day two, after a night of voluntary SR, and on day 3, after a recovery night. In the second arm, same sensory tests were done but no SR was requested. RESULTS: Significantly more sleepiness was observed after SR in comparison with baseline and recovery testing days (P < 0.05). After SR, mechanical pain threshold on the tip of the tongue was significantly lower on day after SR (day 2) and a rebound, higher values, were observed on the third day (P < 0.05); no difference on thumb site. In the control arm, no SR and no significant differences between days were observed for all the variables of interest. CONCLUSIONS: The present results suggest that SR may affect somatosensory perception in the oro-facial area.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".