STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess circadian and homeostatic influences on subjective sleepiness and cognitive performance in older adults when sleep and waking are scheduled at different times of day; to assess changes in subjective sleepiness and cognitive performance across several weeks of an inpatient study; and to compare these findings with results from younger adults. DESIGN: Three 24-h baseline days consisting of 16 h of wakefulness and an 8-h sleep opportunity followed by 3-beat cycles of a 20-h forced desynchrony (FD) condition; 18 20-h "days," each consisting of 13.33 h of scheduled wakefulness and 6.67 h of scheduled sleep opportunity. SETTING: Intensive Physiological Monitoring Unit of the Brigham and Women's Hospital General Clinical Research Center. PARTICIPANTS: 10 healthy older adults (age 64.00 +/- 5.98 y, 5 females) and 10 healthy younger adults (age 24.50 +/- 3.54 y, 5 females). INTERVENTIONS: Wake episodes during FD scheduled to begin 4 h earlier each day allowing for data collection at a full range of circadian phases. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Subjective sleepiness, cognitive throughput, and psychomotor vigilance assessed every 2 h throughout the study. Core body temperature (CBT) data collected throughout to assess circadian phase. Older subjects were less sleepy and performed significantly better on reaction time (RT) measures than younger subjects. Decrements among younger subjects increased in magnitude further into the experiment, while the performance of older subjects remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that the waking performance and alertness of healthy older subjects are less impacted by the cumulative effects of repeated exposure to adverse circadian phase than that of young adults. This suggests that there are age-related changes in the circadian promotion of alertness, in the wake-dependent decline of alertness, and/or in how these 2 regulatory systems interact in healthy aging.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess circadian and homeostatic influences on subjective sleepiness and cognitive performance in older adults when sleep and waking are scheduled at different times of day; to assess changes in subjective sleepiness and cognitive performance across several weeks of an inpatient study; and to compare these findings with results from younger adults. DESIGN: Three 24-h baseline days consisting of 16 h of wakefulness and an 8-h sleep opportunity followed by 3-beat cycles of a 20-h forced desynchrony (FD) condition; 18 20-h "days," each consisting of 13.33 h of scheduled wakefulness and 6.67 h of scheduled sleep opportunity. SETTING: Intensive Physiological Monitoring Unit of the Brigham and Women's Hospital General Clinical Research Center. PARTICIPANTS: 10 healthy older adults (age 64.00 +/- 5.98 y, 5 females) and 10 healthy younger adults (age 24.50 +/- 3.54 y, 5 females). INTERVENTIONS: Wake episodes during FD scheduled to begin 4 h earlier each day allowing for data collection at a full range of circadian phases. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Subjective sleepiness, cognitive throughput, and psychomotor vigilance assessed every 2 h throughout the study. Core body temperature (CBT) data collected throughout to assess circadian phase. Older subjects were less sleepy and performed significantly better on reaction time (RT) measures than younger subjects. Decrements among younger subjects increased in magnitude further into the experiment, while the performance of older subjects remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that the waking performance and alertness of healthy older subjects are less impacted by the cumulative effects of repeated exposure to adverse circadian phase than that of young adults. This suggests that there are age-related changes in the circadian promotion of alertness, in the wake-dependent decline of alertness, and/or in how these 2 regulatory systems interact in healthy aging.
Authors: James K Wyatt; Christian Cajochen; Angela Ritz-De Cecco; Charles A Czeisler; Derk-Jan Dijk Journal: Sleep Date: 2004-05-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Bernie Y Sunwoo; Nicholas Jackson; Greg Maislin; Indira Gurubhagavatula; Charles F George; Allan I Pack Journal: Sleep Date: 2012-01-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Xuan Zhou; Sally A Ferguson; Raymond W Matthews; Charli Sargent; David Darwent; David J Kennaway; Gregory D Roach Journal: Sleep Date: 2011-01-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Xuan Zhou; Sally A Ferguson; Raymond W Matthews; Charli Sargent; David Darwent; David J Kennaway; Gregory D Roach Journal: Sleep Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Marc Pomplun; Edward J Silva; Joseph M Ronda; Sean W Cain; Mirjam Y Münch; Charles A Czeisler; Jeanne F Duffy Journal: J Vis Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 2.240
Authors: Aleksandar Videnovic; Charleston Noble; Kathryn J Reid; Jie Peng; Fred W Turek; Angelica Marconi; Alfred W Rademaker; Tanya Simuni; Cindy Zadikoff; Phyllis C Zee Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Stephany M Biello; David R Bonsall; Lynsey A Atkinson; Penny C Molyneux; Mary E Harrington; Gurprit S Lall Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Nayantara Santhi; Alpar S Lazar; Patrick J McCabe; June C Lo; John A Groeger; Derk-Jan Dijk Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 11.205