| Literature DB >> 32350333 |
Maria Lavonius1, Henry Railo2,3,4, Linnea Karlsson2,5, Valtteri Wikström6, Jetro J Tuulari2,7, Noora M Scheinin2,7, E Juulia Paavonen8, Päivi Polo-Kantola9,10, Hasse Karlsson2,7, Minna Huotilainen2,6.
Abstract
Poor maternal sleep quality during pregnancy may act as a prenatal stress factor for the fetus and associate with neonate neurocognition, for example via fetal programming. The impacts of worsened maternal sleep on neonatal development and, more specifically on neonatal auditory brain responses, have not been studied. A total of 155 mother-neonate dyads drawn from the FinnBrain Birth Cohort Study participated in our study including maternal self-report questionnaires on sleep at gestational week 24 and an event-related potential (ERP) measurement among 1-2-day-old neonates. For sleep quality assessment, the Basic Nordic Sleep Questionnaire (BNSQ) was used and calculated scores for (1) insomnia, (2) subjective sleep loss and (3) sleepiness were formed and applied in the analyses. In the auditory ERP protocol, three emotionally uttered pseudo words (in happy, angry and sad valence) were presented among neutrally uttered pseudo words. To study the relations between prenatal maternal sleep quality and auditory emotion-related ERP responses, mixed-effects regression models were computed for early (100-200 ms) and late (300-500 ms) ERP response time-windows. All of the selected BNSQ scores were associated with neonatal ERP responses for happy and angry emotion stimuli (sleep loss and sleepiness in the early, and insomnia, sleep loss and sleepiness in the late time-window). For sad stimuli, only maternal sleep loss predicted the neonatal ERP response in the late time-window, likely because the overall ERP was weakest in the sad condition. We conclude that maternal sleep quality during pregnancy is associated with changes in neonatal auditory ERP responses.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32350333 PMCID: PMC7190640 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-64160-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Inclusion and exclusion of mother-neonate dyads.
Demographics of mothers and neonates included in the analyses (n = 142).
| Mean ± SD or % (n) | Range | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years)a | 30.8 ± 4.7 | 18.9–42.2 |
| BMI (kg/m2)b | 24.4 ± 4.6 | 17.1–45.6 |
| Nulliparousc | 58.3% (74) | |
| Multiparousc | 41.7% (53) | |
| BNSQ insomniad at gwk 24 | 7.7 ± 2.1 | 4–12 |
| BNSQ sleep losse at gwk 24 | 1.0 ± 1.0 | −1.5–4.0 |
| BNSQ sleepinessd at gwk 24 | 5.5 ± 2.2 | 2–10 |
| EPDSd at gwk 24 | 5.1 ± 4.9 | 0–25 |
| Sex (girls/boys) | 47.9% (68)/52.1% (74) | |
| Gestational weeks at birth | 40.0 ± 1.2 | 36.1–42.3 |
| Birth weight (g) | 3579 ± 443 | 2635–5470 |
| Age at EEG recording (days) | 1.4 ± 1.0 | 0–5 |
Note: BNSQ = Basic Nordic Sleep Questionnaire; EPDS = Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale; gwk = gestational week.
Some data were missing due to attrition in questionnaire and register data acquisition.
Data available for an = 108, bn = 140, cn = 127, dn = 121, en = 119.
Figure 2ERP waveforms. (A) The mean ERP amplitudes of the whole group of neonates for the three emotional stimuli and standard stimulus separately for six electrode locations. The two grey highlights at the timeline in upper left corner represent the two time-windows at 100-200 ms and 300-500 ms that were used in the analysis. (B) The sound waves of the emotional speech stimuli at the timeline.
Mean ERP amplitudes and difference from 0 μV by two-tailed one sample T-tests (n = 142).
| mean ( | SD | 95% CI | t-value | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amplitude | |||||
| happy | −0.79 | 4.32 | −1.50–−0.07 | −2.17 | 0.032 |
| sad | −0.44 | 4.90 | −1.25–0.37 | −1.07 | 0.287 |
| angry | −1.13 | 4.35 | −1.86–−0.41 | −3.10 | 0.002 |
| happy | 0.94 | 4.42 | 0.20–1.67 | 2.53 | 0.013 |
| sad | 0.69 | 4.91 | −0.13–1.50 | 1.67 | 0.098 |
| angry | 0.77 | 5.26 | −0.10–1.64 | 1.74 | 0.083 |
Figure 3Results. Correlations between (A) maternal sleep loss (early time-window, happy stimulus), (B) maternal sleepiness (late time-window, happy stimulus), and (C) maternal sleepiness (late time-window, sad stimulus) and neonate average ERP amplitudes (averaged across all electrodes). The lines are simple linear fits across the data points, not the results of the mixed-effects models.