0108 The Effect of Reward Motivation on Placekeeping Performance After Sleep Deprivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Sleep deprivation impairs some higher-order cognitive processes, but this impairment may reflect changes in motivation as well as changes in the cognitive capacity to perform the task, which has implications for intervention strategies. Here, we asked whether reward motivation could offset the effects of sleep deprivation on placekeeping, a higher-order cognitive process that is prevalent in performance of everyday tasks. To conduct this study under pandemic conditions, we developed a method for online data collection that promises to facilitate sleep-deprivation research more generally, by allowing for larger and more diverse samples to be collected at lower cost compared to in-person methods. Methods In the evening, participants joined a Zoom meeting and completed the Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) and a placekeeping task (UNRAVEL). Afterwards, participants were randomly assigned to remain in the meeting and stay awake (Deprivation) or leave the meeting and sleep (Rested). Deprivation participants were monitored remotely overnight by two research assistants. Rested participants left the meeting at 00:00 and returned at 08:30. At 08:30, all participants completed the PVT and UNRAVEL again. Some participants had the opportunity to earn a monetary reward based on their morning UNRAVEL performance (Motivated) and some did not (Nonmotivated). We analyzed morning performance with a 2 (Sleep: Rested, Deprivation) x 2 (Reward: Motivated, Nonmotivated) design using evening performance as a covariate. Results Preliminary results from 206 participants show Deprivation participants had more placekeeping errors and lapses in the PVT than Rested participants. Motivated participants made fewer placekeeping errors after task interruption than Nonmotivated participants. The Sleep and Reward factors did not interact. Conclusion These results suggest that motivational interventions can mitigate some effects of sleep deprivation on complex task performance. However, reward motivation affected Rested and Deprivation performance similarly rather than compensating for any effects specific to sleep deprivation. This pattern does not rule out an effect of sleep deprivation on motivation, but does suggest that a different approach will be necessary to isolate this effect. Support (If Any) This research is funded by the Office of Naval Research (N00014-20-1-2739).
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".