The protective effect of daytime sleep on planning and risk-related decision-making in emerging adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the effect of a daytime sleep opportunity on planning and risk-related decision-making in emerging adults using multiple neurobehavioral assessments. A total of 136 healthy emerging adults (20.0 ± 1.5 years), 65% female, performed the Risky-Gains Task and the Tower of London test twice. Between these assessments, they were randomized to either have a sleep opportunity monitored by polysomnography (Sleep group, n = 101) or to stay awake (Wake group, n = 35). During Test 2, in comparison to the Sleep group, the Wake group showed increased sleepiness, worse planning ability and more decrease in reaction times when selecting risky choices. Changes in Tower of London test steps used and Risky-Gains Task response time correlated with the number of central and frontal fast sleep spindles, respectively. These results indicate that among emerging adults who commonly have poor sleep patterns, a daytime sleep opportunity was related to better planning ability, better psychomotor vigilance and stable response speeds in risk-related decision-making. Changes in planning and risk-related decision-making correlated with the number of sleep spindles during the nap, supporting a specific role for sleep in modulating planning and potentially other higher-order cognitive functions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".