4.6 Review

Individual differences in adult human sleep and wakefulness: Leitmotif for a research agenda

期刊

SLEEP
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 479-496

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/sleep/28.4.479

关键词

individual differences; trait variability; genetics; sleep behavior; sleep architecture; sleepiness; waking neurobehavioral functions; sleep deprivation; differential vulnerability; sleep disorders; adult humans

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reviews the literature on interindividual variability in human sleep parameters, sleepiness, responses to sleep deprivation, and manifestations of sleep disorders. Variability among individuals in sleep/wake biology and behavior is pervasive. The magnitude of such individual differences is often considerable and comparable to the effect sizes of many experimental and clinical interventions. Evidence is accumulating that certain aspects of sleep/wake-related variability-such as sleep duration, daytime sleepiness, and vulnerability to the effects of sleep loss-involve trait characteristics in healthy populations and among sleep-disordered patients. Establishing the trait-specific nature of variability in sleep/wake parameters is a prerequisite for elucidating the corresponding neurophysiologic and/or genetic mechanisms. At present, it remains largely unknown what underlies or predicts sleep/wake-related traits, what relationships these traits may have to each other, and what functional significance may be associated with specific traits. Scientific studies addressing these issues are warranted, as understanding the basis of trait variability may yield new insights into sleep/wake regulation and sleep pathology. Understanding individual differences in sleep and wakefulness may also have provocative but important implications for health economics and clinical care, as well as for safety, productivity, and general well-being. This paper gives suggestions for a research agenda focusing on individual differences in sleep research and sleep medicine.

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