Sleep Architecture and EEG Power Spectrum Following Cumulative Sleep Restriction: A Comparison between Typically Developing Children and Children with ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No studies have looked at the effects of cumulative sleep restriction (CSR) on sleep architecture or the power spectrum of sleep EEG (electroencephalogram) in school-age children, as recorded by PSG (polysomnography). This is true for both typically developing (TD) children and children with ADHD (attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder), who are known to have more sleep difficulties. Participants were children (ages 6-12 years), including 18 TD and 18 ADHD, who were age- and sex-matched. The CSR protocol included a two-week baseline and two randomized conditions: Typical (six nights of sleep based on baseline sleep schedules) and Restricted (one-hour reduction of baseline time in bed). This resulted in an average of 28 min per night difference in sleep. Based on ANOVAs (analysis of variance), children with ADHD took longer to reach N3 (non-rapid eye movement), had more WASO (wake after sleep onset) (within the first 5.1 h of the night), and had more REM (rapid eye movement) sleep than TD children regardless of condition. During CSR, ADHD participants had less REM and a trend toward longer durations of N1 and N2 compared to the TD group. No significant differences in the power spectrum were found between groups or conditions. In conclusion, this CSR protocol impacted some physiological aspects of sleep but may not be sufficient to cause changes in the power spectrum of sleep EEG. Although preliminary, group-by-condition interactions suggest that the homeostatic processes in children with ADHD may be impaired during CSR.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".