Sleep and Inhibitory Control Over Mood-Congruent Information in Emerging Adults With Depressive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Accumulating evidence has suggested bidirectionality between sleep problems and depression, but the underlying mechanism is unclear. We assessed the role of sleep in inhibitory control ability with emotional stimuli, which has been shown to be suboptimal among individuals with depression and proposed to perpetuate depressive symptoms. METHODS: Emerging adults (aged 18-25 years, 64.6% female) were screened for depressive and other mental disorders by structured clinical interview and questionnaire. Individuals with depressive disorders were assigned to have a polysomnography-monitored daytime sleep opportunity (Sleep-Dep, n = 20), whereas nondepressed individuals were randomized to either have daytime sleep (Sleep-Ctrl, n = 27) or stay awake (Wake-Ctrl, n = 18). Participants completed the Affective Go/No-Go Task two times, separated by experimental conditions. RESULTS: A factorial model with a between-subject factor (Sleep-Dep/Sleep-Ctrl/Wake-Ctrl) and a within-subject factor (test 1/test 2) was used to assess if the groups differed in inhibitory control across test sessions, as inferred by changes in d-prime and false alarm rates (FA). Results from mixed factorial models showed a significant interaction effect between time and group on FA in the block with neutral faces as the target and happy faces as the nontarget (F(2,61) = 5.15, pfdr = .045). Although Sleep-Dep had decreased FA after sleep (t(19) = 2.94, pfdr = .050), Sleep-Ctrl and Wake-Ctrl had no significant between-session changes (p values > .05). Postsleep improvement in FA in Sleep-Dep correlated with longer stage 2 sleep (r(20) = 0.788, pfdr < .001) and stage 2 fast spindle number at O1 (r(18) = 0.692, pfdr = .015). CONCLUSIONS: Sleep gain, particularly stage 2 sleep and related physiology, potentially enhances inhibitory control ability responding to emotional information among individuals with depressive disorders.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".