Sarah McGuire1, Uwe Müller2, Eva-Maria Elmenhorst2, Mathias Basner1,2. 1. Division of Sleep and Chronobiology, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. 2. Division of Flight Physiology, Institute of Aerospace Medicine, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Environmental noise exposure disturbs sleep and impairs recuperation, and may contribute to the increased risk for (cardiovascular) disease. Noise policy and regulation are usually based on average responses despite potentially large inter-individual differences in the effects of traffic noise on sleep. In this analysis, we investigated what percentage of the total variance in noise-induced awakening reactions can be explained by stable inter-individual differences. METHODS: We investigated 69 healthy subjects polysomnographically (mean ± standard deviation 40 ± 13 years, range 18-68 years, 32 male) in this randomized, balanced, double-blind, repeated measures laboratory study. This study included one adaptation night, 9 nights with exposure to 40, 80, or 120 road, rail, and/or air traffic noise events (including one noise-free control night), and one recovery night. RESULTS: Mixed-effects models of variance controlling for reaction probability in noise-free control nights, age, sex, number of noise events, and study night showed that 40.5% of the total variance in awakening probability and 52.0% of the total variance in EEG arousal probability were explained by inter-individual differences. If the data set was restricted to nights (4 exposure nights with 80 noise events per night), 46.7% of the total variance in awakening probability and 57.9% of the total variance in EEG arousal probability were explained by inter-individual differences. The results thus demonstrate that, even in this relatively homogeneous, healthy, adult study population, a considerable amount of the variance observed in noise-induced sleep disturbance can be explained by inter-individual differences that cannot be explained by age, gender, or specific study design aspects. CONCLUSIONS: It will be important to identify those at higher risk for noise induced sleep disturbance. Furthermore, the custom to base noise policy and legislation on average responses should be re-assessed based on these findings.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Environmental noise exposure disturbs sleep and impairs recuperation, and may contribute to the increased risk for (cardiovascular) disease. Noise policy and regulation are usually based on average responses despite potentially large inter-individual differences in the effects of traffic noise on sleep. In this analysis, we investigated what percentage of the total variance in noise-induced awakening reactions can be explained by stable inter-individual differences. METHODS: We investigated 69 healthy subjects polysomnographically (mean ± standard deviation 40 ± 13 years, range 18-68 years, 32 male) in this randomized, balanced, double-blind, repeated measures laboratory study. This study included one adaptation night, 9 nights with exposure to 40, 80, or 120 road, rail, and/or air traffic noise events (including one noise-free control night), and one recovery night. RESULTS: Mixed-effects models of variance controlling for reaction probability in noise-free control nights, age, sex, number of noise events, and study night showed that 40.5% of the total variance in awakening probability and 52.0% of the total variance in EEG arousal probability were explained by inter-individual differences. If the data set was restricted to nights (4 exposure nights with 80 noise events per night), 46.7% of the total variance in awakening probability and 57.9% of the total variance in EEG arousal probability were explained by inter-individual differences. The results thus demonstrate that, even in this relatively homogeneous, healthy, adult study population, a considerable amount of the variance observed in noise-induced sleep disturbance can be explained by inter-individual differences that cannot be explained by age, gender, or specific study design aspects. CONCLUSIONS: It will be important to identify those at higher risk for noise induced sleep disturbance. Furthermore, the custom to base noise policy and legislation on average responses should be re-assessed based on these findings.
Authors: Thien Thanh Dang-Vu; Scott M McKinney; Orfeu M Buxton; Jo M Solet; Jeffrey M Ellenbogen Journal: Curr Biol Date: 2010-08-10 Impact factor: 10.834
Authors: Mathias Basner; Wolfgang Babisch; Adrian Davis; Mark Brink; Charlotte Clark; Sabine Janssen; Stephen Stansfeld Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-10-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Michael G Smith; Ilona Croy; Mikael Ögren; Oscar Hammar; Eva Lindberg; Kerstin Persson Waye Journal: J Acoust Soc Am Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 1.840
Authors: Edward L Melanson; Hannah K Ritchie; Tristan B Dear; Victoria Catenacci; Karen Shea; Elizabeth Connick; Thomas M Moehlman; Ellen R Stothard; Janine Higgins; Andrew W McHill; Kenneth P Wright Journal: Neurobiol Sleep Circadian Rhythms Date: 2017-12-29
Authors: Eva-Maria Elmenhorst; Barbara Griefahn; Vinzent Rolny; Mathias Basner Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 3.390