MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157667374 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsab072.134

135 One night of mild sleep restriction affects EEG and behavioural measures of vigilance

2021· article· en· W3157667374 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron Gibbings, L. Bryan Ray, Nareg Berberian, Ali Shahidi Zandi, Adrian M. Owen, Felix J. E. Comeau, Stuart Fogel

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVigilance (psychology)Psychomotor vigilance taskSleep restrictionElectroencephalographyArousalAudiologyPsychologyCognitionPsychomotor learningSleep deprivationSlow-wave sleepElectrophysiologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePsychiatryNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Much is known about the behavioural and cognitive consequences of chronic sleep loss but relatively little is known about the changes in brain activity associated with reduced vigilance after mild and acute sleep loss. Mild and acute sleep loss is generally thought to be innocuous despite research showing emotional processing, visual attention and behavioural responding are all negatively impacted by even small amounts of sleep loss. The current study investigated behavioural, cognitive, and electrophysiological consequences of mild (i.e., a couple of hours) and acute (i.e., a single night) sleep loss via simultaneous behavioural and physiological measures of vigilance. Methods Participants (N = 23; 18 females, Mage = 22 ± 3 years) came into the lab (from ~12 pm to 3 pm) for two testing days after sleeping from 1 am to 6 am (Sleep Restriction), or from 12 am to 9 am (Normally Rested). Brain activity was recorded using electroencephalography (EEG) from 15 scalp derivations, while vigilance was assessed simultaneously using the psychomotor vigilance task (PVT). Results Vigilance was reduced in the Sleep Restricted vs. Normally Rested condition, (F(1,22)=9.02, p=0.007). This was exacerbated over the course of performing the PVT, (F(5,110)=8.12, p<0.001). Sleep Restriction also resulted in increased intensity of alpha burst activity compared to the Normally Rested condition (F(1,20)=6.19, p=0.022). Lastly, EEG spectral power differed between restriction sleep conditions across deepening stages of sleep onset, particularly for frequencies that reflect arousal e.g., delta, alpha and beta activity (F(1,20)>5.52, p<0.029). Conclusion These results suggest that even a small amount of sleep loss, occurring on only one night significantly reduces vigilance and impacts the physiology of the brain in ways that reflect reduced arousal. Understanding the neural correlates and cognitive processes associated with sleep loss may lead to important advancements in identifying and preventing potentially deleterious or dangerous, sleep-related lapses in vigilance (e.g., in the classroom, workplace), and when lapses in vigilance can be life-threatening (e.g., while driving). Support (if any):

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207