4.6 Article

Effects of one night of induced night-wakings versus sleep restriction on sustained attention and mood: a pilot study

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE
卷 15, 期 7, 页码 825-832

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2014.03.016

关键词

Night-wakings; Sleep restriction; Attention; Mood; Actigraphy; Continuous performance test

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Despite their high prevalence in daily life, repeated night-wakings and their cognitive and emotional consequences have received less research attention compared to other types of sleep disturbances. Our aim was to experimentally compare the effects of one night of induced infrequent night-wakings (of similar to 15 min, each requiring a purposeful response) and sleep restriction on sustained attention and mood in young adults. Methods: In a within-between subjects counterbalanced design, 61 healthy adults (40 females; aged 20-29 years) underwent home assessments of sustained attention and self-reported mood at two times: after a normal (control) sleep night, and after a night of either sleep restriction (4 h in bed) or induced night-wakings (four prolonged awakenings across 8 h in bed). Sleep was monitored using actigraphy and sleep diaries. Sustained attention was assessed using an online continuous performance test (OCPT), and mood was reported online using the Profile of Mood States (POMS). Results: Actigraphic data revealed good compliance with experimental sleep requirements. Induced night-wakings and sleep restriction both resulted in more OCPT omission and commission errors, and in increased depression, fatigue and confusion levels and reduced vigor compared to the normal sleep night. Moreover, there were no significant differences between the consequences of induced awakenings and sleep restriction. Conclusions: Our pilot study indicates that, similar to sleep restriction, one night of life-like repeated night-wakings negatively affects mood and sustained attention. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据