0940 Frontal Attentional Processes Correlate with Sleep Problems in Veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) instigates a series of neurocognitive dysfunctions, with sleep irregularities and attentional difficulties being key interacting features. Despite the known impact of sleep problems on cognitive performance, there is limited understanding about how poor sleep may be associated with basic attentional processes in individuals with PTSD. This study investigated associations between sleep macroachitecture and brain responses to attention processing involving the frontal cortex in veterans living with PTSD. Methods Event-related potentials were recorded before bedtime under two conditions: 1) presentation of an auditory stimulus at a rapid pace (every 2 seconds) and 2) the same auditory stimulus presented at a slower pace (every 16 seconds). Event-related potentials elicited in the slow condition are recognized for activating attentional networks in the frontal lobe, while event-related potentials elicited in the fast condition would activate the auditory cortex. Polysomnography was recorded throughout the night for sleep architecture. Associations between sleep architecture parameters and the N1 and P2 event-related potential components were assessed using Pearson correlations. Results Thirteen veterans (1 female, Mean+SD = 49 + 8.9 y.o.) with a PTSD diagnosis based on DSM-V criteria participated in this study. Most participants were using serotonergic medications. The P2 elicited in the slow condition was significantly negatively correlated with REM latency (r=-0.69, p=.008) and positively correlated with minutes spent in REM (r=0.59, p=.033). No other significant correlations were found. Conclusion Veterans living with PTSD often experience increased REM pressure, as reflected by shorter REM latency and higher amounts of REM sleep. This study highlights an association between REM abnormalities with increased brain resources mobilized by frontal attentional processing. Investigating how sleep interventions may influence attentional processes may help improve our understanding of how good sleep could counteract the adverse effects of PTSD on brain functions. Support (if any) This project was funded by a competitive grant from the Canadian National Defence (Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS)).
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) | 0.000 | 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".