STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of chronotype (morning types and evening types) on sleep stages and quantitative sleep electroencephalograms when constraints on the sleep schedule are minimal and when sex difference is taken into account. DESIGN: A 48-hour session in the laboratory, including 2 nights of polysomnography, preceded by 7 days of ambulatory actigraphy. SETTING: Chronobiology laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four healthy young subjects: 12 morning types and 12 evening types selected by questionnaire. Each group included 6 men and 6 women. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: A polysomnography night of 8 hours in duration was recorded according to preferred sleep schedule. Sleep-stage analysis revealed that morning types and evening types did not differ in sleep architecture. However, morning-type men showed a higher percentage of stage 1 sleep and lower sleep efficiency than evening-type men. Electroencephalogram spectral analysis was conducted in non-rapid eye movement sleep for 6 frequency bands. Morning types had more spectral power in low sigma (12-14 Hz) compared with evening types. The most robust difference between women and men was found in high sigma (14-16 Hz) and was not present between chronotypes. The decay rate of slow-wave activity (1-5 Hz) tended to be faster in morning types compared with evening types (P = .06). This rate was almost identical for women and men. CONCLUSIONS: These results agree with the hypothesis that homeostatic sleep regulation differs between morning types and evening types, with morning types showing indications of a higher rate of dissipation of sleep pressure during the night. Morningness-eveningness seems to affect sleep in a sex-specific manner, with men being more affected by their chronotype.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of chronotype (morning types and evening types) on sleep stages and quantitative sleep electroencephalograms when constraints on the sleep schedule are minimal and when sex difference is taken into account. DESIGN: A 48-hour session in the laboratory, including 2 nights of polysomnography, preceded by 7 days of ambulatory actigraphy. SETTING: Chronobiology laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four healthy young subjects: 12 morning types and 12 evening types selected by questionnaire. Each group included 6 men and 6 women. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: A polysomnography night of 8 hours in duration was recorded according to preferred sleep schedule. Sleep-stage analysis revealed that morning types and evening types did not differ in sleep architecture. However, morning-type men showed a higher percentage of stage 1 sleep and lower sleep efficiency than evening-type men. Electroencephalogram spectral analysis was conducted in non-rapid eye movement sleep for 6 frequency bands. Morning types had more spectral power in low sigma (12-14 Hz) compared with evening types. The most robust difference between women and men was found in high sigma (14-16 Hz) and was not present between chronotypes. The decay rate of slow-wave activity (1-5 Hz) tended to be faster in morning types compared with evening types (P = .06). This rate was almost identical for women and men. CONCLUSIONS: These results agree with the hypothesis that homeostatic sleep regulation differs between morning types and evening types, with morning types showing indications of a higher rate of dissipation of sleep pressure during the night. Morningness-eveningness seems to affect sleep in a sex-specific manner, with men being more affected by their chronotype.
Authors: Hannah K Ritchie; Tina M Burke; Tristan B Dear; Andrew W Mchill; John Axelsson; Kenneth P Wright Journal: J Sleep Res Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 3.981
Authors: Daniel J Buysse; Anne Germain; Martica L Hall; Douglas E Moul; Eric A Nofzinger; Amy Begley; Cindy L Ehlers; Wesley Thompson; David J Kupfer Journal: Sleep Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Jonathan S Emens; Krista Yuhas; Jennifer Rough; Nidhi Kochar; Dawn Peters; Alfred J Lewy Journal: Chronobiol Int Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 2.877