The Inert Brain: Explaining Neural Inertia as Post-anaesthetic Sleep Inertia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Neural inertia" is the brain's tendency to resist changes in its arousal state: it is manifested as emergence from anaesthesia occurring at lower drug doses than those required for anaesthetic induction, a phenomenon observed across very different species, from invertebrates to mammals. However, the brain is also subject to another form of inertia, familiar to most people: sleep inertia, the feeling of grogginess, confusion and impaired performance that typically follows awakening. Here, we propose a novel account of neural inertia, as the result of sleep inertia taking place after the artificial sleep induced by anaesthetics. We argue that the orexinergic and noradrenergic systems may be key mechanisms for the control of these transition states, with the orexinergic system exerting a stabilising effect through the noradrenergic system. This effect may be reflected at the macroscale in terms of altered functional anticorrelations between default mode and executive control networks of the human brain. The hypothesised link between neural inertia and sleep inertia could explain why different anaesthetic drugs induce different levels of neural inertia, and why elderly individuals and narcoleptic patients are more susceptible to neural inertia. This novel hypothesis also enables us to generate several empirically testable predictions at both the behavioural and neural levels, with potential implications for clinical practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".