Physiological and Cognitive Effects of Alarm Waking and Circadian Disruption: A Case Study on Heart Rate, Core Temperature, and Vigilance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern lifestyles often rely on alarm clocks that disrupt the body’s natural sleep-wake cycle, yet their physiological consequences remain underexplored. This case study investigates the effects of alarm-induced waking versus natural waking on key physiological and cognitive parameters: heart rate, core body temperature, and reaction time. Over a two-week observational period, a 21-year-old male participant tracked biometric data during days involving alarm use and days without. Heart rate was measured using a smartwatch, core temperature with an oral thermometer, and cognitive vigilance via reaction-time trials on a mobile app. Results show that alarm-induced waking was associated with higher waking heart rates (mean: 61.5 bpm vs. 58.75 bpm), lower core body temperature (36.4°C vs. 36.55°C), and slower reaction times (mean: 0.372 sec vs. 0.315 sec) compared to free days. Sleep timing analysis revealed approximately 1.5 hours of social jetlag, defined as the discrepancy between mid-sleep time on workdays and free days. These findings suggest that alarm clocks interfere with physiological readiness by interrupting circadian-regulated processes such as thermoregulation, cardiovascular balance, and cognitive arousal. While limited by a single-subject design, this study demonstrates measurable physiological disruption from alarm clock use and reinforces the importance of aligning sleep schedules with biological rhythms.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".