Acute partial sleep restriction attenuates working memory performance and does not affect BDNF in young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Sleep loss decreases working memory (WM) performance in young adults. The mechanisms that regulate WM performance during sleep loss are integrative and likely depend on the duration of perturbed sleep. The aim of this research was to investigate the impact of a single night of partial sleep restriction (PSR) on WM, and the extent to which factors such as cardiorespiratory fitness and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) influence WM performance following one night of PSR. Methods We measured WM performance after one night of PSR in twenty-two young adults (n=13 females) with otherwise normal sleep habits. Participants completed an N-back test following one night of normal sleep (6–9 h sleep duration) and after one night of PSR (3 h sleep duration). To account for learning effects due to repeated cognitive testing, a time-matched normal sleep control group was also collected (n=22). Plasma BDNF was measured after normal sleep and PSR. Cardiorespiratory fitness was assessed via an incremental test to exhaustion on a cycle ergometer. Results 3-back reaction time was slightly slower after PSR compared to the control group ( P Interaction =0.038; <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <m:mrow> <m:msubsup> <m:mi>η</m:mi> <m:mi>p</m:mi> <m:mn>2</m:mn> </m:msubsup> </m:mrow> </m:math> ${\eta }_{p}^{2}$ =0.10). No changes in BDNF were observed between sleep conditions (p=0.720; Cohen’s d =−0.04). WM performance after acute PSR was inversely related to cardiorespiratory fitness (p=0.025; Pearson’s r=−0.48); and these associations were observed without changes in plasma BDNF. Conclusions Our data suggest that a single night of PSR may acutely impair WM in young adults and contribute to an understanding about the incipient cognitive consequences of shortened sleep.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".