Insomnia does not affect heart rate changes when young adults watch humorous films: An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotional reactivity in insomnia is affected both subjectively and on a physiological level for negative emotional material, but little is known about reactions to positive stimuli. We here investigated whether in younger adult insomnia patients, presentation of short humorous films would lead to heart rate decreases during and after film viewing, as compared to heart rate changes when falling asleep. Investigating 20 participants with DSM-5-diagnosed insomnia and 18 participants without insomnia, we found that heart rate decreased when falling asleep, increased when watching humorous films and returned to normal values afterwards for all participants. Film-related heart rate increases were strongly related to humour ratings of the films. No differences were found between those with and without insomnia on subjective ratings of the films, film-related heart rate changes or when falling asleep. We conclude that the experience of positive daily life stimuli in younger adults is not affected by insomnia in our study, despite insomnia having a known more profound effect on negative stimuli. Future studies exploring insomnia-related autonomous nervous system responses combining different neurophysiological modalities should confirm our findings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".