4.5 Article

Effects of sleep deprivation on impulsive behaviors in men and women

期刊

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
卷 91, 期 5, 页码 579-587

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.03.020

关键词

sleep deprivation; risk taking; behavioral inhibition; delay discounting; human; sex differences

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR00055] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [T32 DA07255, DA09133] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of sleep deprivation on impulsive behavior. Patients with impulse control disorders often report sleep problems, and sleep deprivation even in healthy individuals impairs cognition, decision-making, and perhaps impulse control. To characterize the effects of sleep loss on specific forms of impulsive behavior, we tested the effects of overnight, monitored sleep deprivation on measures of impulsivity and cognition in healthy volunteers. Ten men and ten women completed two 24 h sessions in random order, in which they were either allowed to sleep normally or remained awake all night. At 8:30 am and 6:15 pin on the day after sleep or no sleep, participants were tested on the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART), the Experiential Discounting Task, the Adjusting Amount Delay and Probability Discounting Task, and the Stop Task. Participants also completed mood questionnaires and the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Matrix (ANAM) throughout the course of the day. Sleep deprivation did not affect most of the measures of impulsive behavior. However, on the BART, sleep deprivation decreased risk taking in women, but not men. Sleep deprivation produced expected increases in subjective fatigue, and impaired performance on measures of attention and cognitive efficiency on the ANAM. The results indicate that sleep deprivation does not specifically increase impulsive behaviors but may differentially affect risk taking in men and women. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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