4.5 Article

Effects of an experimentally induced rhinovirus cold on sleep, performance, and daytime alertness

期刊

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
卷 71, 期 1-2, 页码 75-81

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0031-9384(00)00322-X

关键词

common cold; rhinovirus type 23; sleepiness; psychomotor performance; sleep efficiency; sleep continuity; multiple sleep latency test (MSLT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study objectives: There is accumulating evidence that the common cold produces impairments in psychomotor vigilance. This has led some investigators to hypothesize that such illnesses may also have disruptive effects on sleep. While several self-report studies suggest that viral illness may influence sleep parameters, no studies have assessed polysomnographically recorded sleep following viral infections. Design: Parallel control group comparison. Setting: Sleep laboratory in a large urban medical center. Participants: Twenty-one men and women with susceptibility to the rhinovirus type 23. Interventions: Nasal inoculation with rhinovirus type 23. Measurements: Polysomnographically recorded sleep for five nights (2300-0700 h) post-viral inoculation. Twice daily (1030 and 1430 h) performance assessment during each experimental day using auditory vigilance and divided attention tasks. A multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) was performed daily for the duration of the study. Results: In symptomatic individuals, total sleep time decreased an average of 23 min, consolidated sleep decreased an average of 36 min, and sleep efficiency was reduced by an average of 5% during the active viral period (experimental days/nights 3-5) compared with the incubation period. Psychomotor performance was impaired. These changes were significantly greater than those observed in asymptomatic individuals. Conclusions: The common cold can have detrimental effects on sleep and psychomotor performance in symptomatic individuals during the initial active phase of the illness. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science 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