4.6 Article

Small platform sleep deprivation selectively increases the average duration of rapid eye movement sleep episodes during sleep rebound

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 205, 期 2, 页码 482-487

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2009.08.004

关键词

Sleep; REM sleep deprivation; Platform method; EEG; Stress; Circadian rhythm

资金

  1. EC [LSHM-CT-2004-503474]
  2. Hungarian Research Fund [D48502, M27976]
  3. Semmelweis University, Ministry of Education, Hungary.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The single platform-on-water (flower pot) method is extensively used for depriving rapid eye movement sleep (REMS). Detailed comparison of sleep-wake architecture, recorded during the rebound period after spending three days on either a small or large platform, could separate the effects of REMS deficit from other stress factors caused by the procedure. A further aim of the study was to find the most characteristic REMS parameter of the rebound originating from REMS deficit. Rats were kept on a small or large platform for 72 h. Their Pronto-parietal electroencephalogram. electromyogram and motility were recorded during the 24 h rebound at the beginning of the passive phase A similar period of a home cage group was also recorded. The most typical differences between the two rebound groups were the increased cumulative time and longer average duration of REMS episodes without significant change in the number of these episodes of the small platform animals during the passive phase Results obtained by cosinor analysis were in accordance with the findings above. Since we did not find any difference in the average duration of REMS episodes comparing the large platform rebound group and the home cage group, we concluded that the increased mean duration of REMS episodes is a selective marker for the rebound caused by small platform sleep deprivation, while other changes in sleep architecture may be the consequence of stress and also some sleep deficit. (C) 2009 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