4.6 Article

Deficits in attention performance are associated with insufficiency of slow-wave sleep in insomnia

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE
卷 23, 期 -, 页码 124-130

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2016.07.017

关键词

Insomnia; Slow-wave sleep; Cognitive performance; Neuropsychology; Attention performance

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81530002]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2015CB856406]
  3. Key Projects in the National Science & Technology Pillar Program [2015BAI13B01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Cognitive impairment is associated with insomnia. However, there is a lack of evidence suggesting a link between insomnia and cognitive dysfunction in objective testing. The objectives of our current study were to assess the differences in components of attentional performance between primary insomnia patients and normal-sleeping controls and to examine potential predictors of attention impairment in patients with insomnia. Methods: We studied 36 patients (age 40.39 +/- 12.36 years; 57.1% male) with insomnia and 25 normal sleeping controls (age 39.88 +/- 12.50 years; 52.9% male) who underwent one-night polysomnography followed by Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT) and Attention Network Task (ANT). ANT reflected three attentional networks termed the alerting, orienting, and executive control networks. Results: After controlling for age, gender, body mass index, depression, anxiety, and education levels, patients with insomnia scored higher on the executive control variable of the ANT compared with normal sleeping controls (96.75 +/- 7.60 vs. 57.00 +/- 10.49, p = 0.01). This higher score was independently associated with insufficiency of slow-wave sleep during nighttime sleep (beta = -0.38, p = 0.04). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that insomnia is associated with deficits in executive control of attention and that the underlying mechanism may be insufficiency of slow-wave sleep in chronic insomnia. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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