Chronic short sleepers display slower reaction time, compared to adequate sleepers, but maintain an intact StartReact effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep curtailment impairs cognitive functions. Studies investigating the effect of sleep on simple reaction time (RT) tasks have been limited to acute sleep deprivation/restriction and none of these studies have tried to investigate the mechanisms behind this effect. Using a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) during a simple RT task has been shown to involuntarily trigger a prepared movement through a faster pathway, termed the StartReact effect. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between chronic sleep duration and movement preparation, during a simple RT task. Participants included 25 short sleepers (?6h) and 25 adequate sleepers (>7.5h), who performed a simple RT task involving a 20° ballistic wrist extension in response to either a control-tone (80dB) or a SAS (120dB). Testing included 6 blocks of 30 trials, the first 2 blocks were control blocks, and the last 4 blocks were considered experimental blocks where a SAS sometimes replaced the control tone. Results showed a significant sleep duration by type of Go-signal interaction on RT (F(1, 22)=5.22, p=.03), indicating that short sleepers had significantly slower RT than the adequate sleepers for the control tone but no significant RT differences were observed between groups for the SAS trials. These findings suggest that in addition to acute sleep deprivation, chronic short sleep is also associated with slower RT during voluntary movement execution. However, since sleep duration was not associated with the StartReact Effect, it indicates that the level of preparation is not the cause of these slower RTs.Acknowledgments: Supported by NSERC and the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation and Science
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.025 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".