Effects of sleep deprivation on perceived and performance fatigability in females: An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Sleep deprivation (SD) is prevalent and impairs motor function; however, little is known about its effect on perceived and performance fatigability, especially in females. To examine the effects of 24 h of SD on these attributes of fatigue, nine females completed a 20‐min isometric, sustained elbow flexion contraction, followed by 10 min of recovery. The superimposed twitch (SIT) elicited via transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) assessed supraspinal drive. Biceps brachii electromyographic data indicated neural excitability in response to stimulation over the motor cortex (motor evoked potential; MEP), corticospinal tract (cervicomedullary motor evoked potential; CMEP), and brachial plexus (maximal M‐wave; Mmax). MEPs and CMEPs were recorded during a TMS‐induced silent period. At baseline, ratings of perceived effort (RPE; 2.9 vs. 1.6) and fatigue (RPF; 6.9 vs. 2.9), were higher for SD than control. Across the 20‐min contraction, RPE increased from 2.2 to 7.6, SIT and MEP/CMEP increased by 284 and 474%, respectively, whereas maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) torque and CMEP/Mmax decreased by 26 and 57%, respectively. No differences were found across conditions for MVC, SIT, Mmax, CMEP/Mmax, or MEP/CMEP prior to, during, and after the fatiguing task. During recovery, RPE (4.9 vs. 3.4), RPF (7.6 vs. 2.8), and perception of task difficulty (5.5 vs. 4.5) were greater for SD than control. Acute SD does not appear to alter performance fatigability development and subsequent recovery; however, it increases perceptions of fatigue, effort, and task difficulty. Thus, the disconnect between perceived and actual neuromuscular capacity following a sustained, submaximal isometric task is exacerbated by SD.
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 | 0.004 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".