Timing of Sleep in the Break Between Two Consecutive Night-Shifts: The Effect of Different Strategies on Daytime Sleep and Night-Time Neurobehavioural Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Charli Sargent,1 Anastasi Kosmadopoulos,2 Xuan Zhou,3 Gregory D Roach1 1Appleton Institute for Behavioural Science, Central Queensland University, Wayville, SA, Australia; 2Centre for Study and Treatment of Circadian Rhythms, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; 3Centre for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, Aarhus, DenmarkCorrespondence: Charli Sargent, Appleton Institute for Behavioural Science, Central Queensland University, PO Box 42, Goodwood, Wayville, SA, 5034, Australia, Tel +61 8 8378 4523, Email charli.sargent@cqu.edu.auObjective: The aim of this study was to examine whether the timing of sleep in the break between consecutive night-shifts affects the quantity and quality of sleep obtained during the daytime and/or neurobehavioural function and self-perceived capacity during the night-time.Methods: Participants (n = 12, all male, aged 22.9± 5.2 y) completed three randomised, counterbalanced conditions in a sleep laboratory, consisting of two consecutive 12-hour night-shifts (18:00â 06:00) with 7 hours in bed in the break between shifts. The three conditions differed only in the timing of the sleep opportunities â immediate (07:00â 14:00), delayed (10:00â 17:00), split (07:00â 10:30 and 13:30â 17:00). Neurobehavioural function (attention, memory, throughput) and self-perceived capacity (sleepiness, alertness, fatigue, mood) were assessed at 2-hour intervals during the night-shifts.Results: Condition did not affect total sleep time (p = 0.465), but it did affect sleep onset latency (p < 0.001; W = 0.780; large effect), wake after sleep onset (p = 0.018; W = 0.333; moderate effect) and the amount of Stage N3 sleep (p < 0.001; η2=0.510; small effect). Compared to the immediate and delayed sleep conditions, the split sleep condition had less wake after sleep onset and more Stage N3 sleep; and compared to the delayed condition, the split sleep condition had longer latency to sleep onset. There was no effect of condition on measures of neurobehavioural function or self-perceived capacity during the second night-shift.Conclusion: None of the three sleep strategies examined here â immediate, delayed or split â are clearly superior or inferior to the others in terms of the capacity to sleep during the daytime or to work at night. Therefore, those who work consecutive night-shifts should employ the strategy that best suits their personal preferences and/or circumstances.Keywords: shift work, sleep duration, slow wave sleep, performance, sleepiness, split sleep
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".