| Literature DB >> 32435176 |
José A Rubiño1, Antoni Gamundí1, Mourad Akaarir1, Francesca Canellas2, Rubén Rial1, M Cristina Nicolau1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bright light therapy has been found to be an efficient method to improve the main parameters of circadian rhythms. However, institutionalized elders may suffer reduced exposure to diurnal light, which may impair their circadian rhythms, cognitive performance, and general health status.Entities:
Keywords: aging; bright light therapy; circadian rhythms; cognitive impairment; sleep quality
Year: 2020 PMID: 32435176 PMCID: PMC7218138 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00359
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 4.677
FIGURE 1Design of work table for exposition to bright light therapy (OSAL-LUM® polyvalent white light emitters).
FIGURE 2Placement of sensors for recording exposure to light, peripheral temperature, and activity.
Evaluation of cognitive and functional variables.
| Memory | Memory Scale, with subtests for immediate, delayed and working memory, word learning, and word recognition. Spanish validation ( |
| Functional state | Global Deterioration Scale. Spanish validation ( |
| Sustained attention | TMT-A. Spanish validation ( |
| Selective attention | Comprehensive Trail Making Test, CTMT-3. Spanish validation ( |
| Divided attention | Stroop. Spanish validation ( |
FIGURE 3Average levels (±SEM) of light recorded 10 min by the subject’s HOBO pendants. ANOVA two-factors, (F(2,35): p < 0.001).
Results of the t-test applied to the Oviedo Sleep Questionnaire.
| Sleep satisfaction | 4.03 ± 0.02 | 4.51 ± 0.04 | |
| Nocturnal insomnia | 20.73 ± 0.68 | 15.70 ± 1.3 | |
| Diurnal hypersomnia | 6.75 ± 0.06 | 6.0 ± 0.04 | 0.153 ns |
Results of the Student’s t-test applied to the memory attention and global deterioration.
| Cognitive state | 22.72 ± 6.53 | 24 ± 5.92 | |
| Immediate memory | 3.5 ± 1.50 | 4.84 ± 1.89 | |
| Delayed memory | 4.41 ± 3.55 | 5.33 ± 2.74 | |
| Working memory | 2.25 ± 0.86 | 2.66 ± 0.88 | |
| Learning | 1.08 ± 2.39 | 0.50 ± 1.56 | |
| Recognition | 20.58 ± 2.96 | 21.33 ± 2.70 | |
| Sustained attention | 2.71 ± 0.05 | 2.38 ± 0.02 | |
| Selective attention | 3.49 ± 0.08 | 3.13 ± 0.19 | |
| Divided attention | 3.79 ± 0.60 | 8.69 ± 0.77 | |
| Functional state | 3.10 ± 1.26 | 2.72 ± 5.92 |
Results of the ANOVA analysis applied to the mean WT circadian parameters over the 3 weeks of the study.
| 1–2 | 1–3 | 2–3 | |||||
| Wrist temperature | |||||||
| Mesor | 32.81 ± 0.12 | 34.24 ± 0.15 | 33.17 ± 1.53 | 0.042 | |||
| Amplitude | 1.03 ± 0.05 | 1.32 ± 0.06 | 1.47 ± 0.08 | ||||
| Acrophase | 23:40 ± 16min | 01:10 ± 10 | 01:31 ± 10 | 0.814 | |||
| IS | 0.47 ± 0.03 | 0.55 ± 0.03 | 0.62 ± 0.02 | 0.642 | |||
| IV | 0.16 ± 0.02 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | ||||
| RA | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.03 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.078 | |||
| RAY | 0.83 ± 0.01 | 0.92 ± 0.01 | 0.88 ± 0.01 | 0.634 | |||
| CFI | 0.49 ± 0.00 | 0.49 ± 0.01 | 0.53 ± 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.003 | ||
Results of the ANOVA analysis applied to the mean activity parameters over the 3 weeks of the study.
| 1–2 | 1–3 | 2–3 | |||||
| Activity | |||||||
| Mesor | 13.48 ± 0.66 | 15.64 ± 0.63 | 15.14 ± 0.39 | 0.024 | 0.019 | ||
| Amplitude | 7.31 ± 0.33 | 9.03 ± 0.32 | 9.13 ± 0.28 | 0.63 | |||
| Acrophase | 13:48 ± 10min | 14:08 ± 8min | 14:27 ± 9min | 0.059 | 0.245 | ||
| IS | 0.30 ± 0.05 | 0.33 ± 0.01 | 0.32 ± 0.006 | ||||
| IV | 0.99 ± 0.01 | 0.87 ± 0.02 | 0.98 ± 0.01 | 0.623 | |||
| RA | 0.73 ± 0.02 | 0.84 ± 0.02 | 0.77 ± 0.01 | 0.39 | |||
| RAY | 0.80 ± 0.03 | 0.89 ± 0.02 | 0.85 ± 0.01 | 0.53 | |||
| CFI | 0.51 ± 0.01 | 0.53 ± 0.01 | 0.51 ± 0.01 | ||||