Literature DB >> 34333658

Cognitive throughput and working memory raw scores consistently differentiate resilient and vulnerable groups to sleep loss.

Tess E Brieva1, Courtney E Casale1, Erika M Yamazaki1, Caroline A Antler1, Namni Goel1.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVES: Substantial individual differences exist in cognitive deficits due to sleep restriction (SR) and total sleep deprivation (TSD), with various methods used to define such neurobehavioral differences. We comprehensively compared numerous methods for defining cognitive throughput and working memory resiliency and vulnerability.
METHODS: Forty-one adults participated in a 13-day experiment: 2 baseline, 5 SR, 4 recovery, and one 36 h TSD night. The Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) and Digit Span Test (DS) were administered every 2 h. Three approaches (Raw Score [average SR performance], Change from Baseline [average SR minus average baseline performance], and Variance [intraindividual variance of SR performance]), and six thresholds (±1 standard deviation, and the best/worst performing 12.5%, 20%, 25%, 33%, 50%) classified Resilient/Vulnerable groups. Kendall's tau-b correlations compared the group categorizations' concordance within and between DSST number correct and DS total number correct. Bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrapped t-tests compared group performance. .
RESULTS: The approaches generally did not categorize the same participants into Resilient/Vulnerable groups within or between measures. The Resilient groups categorized by the Raw Score approach had significantly better DSST and DS performance across all thresholds on all study days, while the Resilient groups categorized by the Change from Baseline approach had significantly better DSST and DS performance for several thresholds on most study days. By contrast, the Variance approach showed no significant DSST and DS performance group differences.
CONCLUSION: Various approaches to define cognitive throughput and working memory resilience/vulnerability to sleep loss are not synonymous. The Raw Score approach can be reliably used to differentiate resilient and vulnerable groups using DSST and DS performance during sleep loss. © Sleep Research Society 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Sleep Research Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DS; DSST; cognitive performance; individual differences; recovery; resilient; sleep deprivation; vulnerable

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34333658      PMCID: PMC8664585          DOI: 10.1093/sleep/zsab197

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sleep        ISSN: 0161-8105            Impact factor:   6.313


  64 in total

1.  Inter- and intra-individual variability in performance near the circadian nadir during sleep deprivation.

Authors:  Danielle J Frey; Pietro Badia; Kenneth P Wright
Journal:  J Sleep Res       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.981

2.  The cumulative cost of additional wakefulness: dose-response effects on neurobehavioral functions and sleep physiology from chronic sleep restriction and total sleep deprivation.

Authors:  Hans P A Van Dongen; Greg Maislin; Janet M Mullington; David F Dinges
Journal:  Sleep       Date:  2003-03-15       Impact factor: 5.849

3.  Sustained attention performance during sleep deprivation associates with instability in behavior and physiologic measures at baseline.

Authors:  Eric Chern-Pin Chua; Sing-Chen Yeo; Ivan Tian-Guang Lee; Luuan-Chin Tan; Pauline Lau; Shiwei Cai; Xiaodong Zhang; Kathiravelu Puvanendran; Joshua J Gooley
Journal:  Sleep       Date:  2014-01-01       Impact factor: 5.849

4.  The degree of radiation-induced DNA strand breaks is altered by acute sleep deprivation and psychological stress and is associated with cognitive performance in humans.

Authors:  Maria Moreno-Villanueva; Gudrun von Scheven; Alan Feiveson; Alexander Bürkle; Honglu Wu; Namni Goel
Journal:  Sleep       Date:  2018-07-01       Impact factor: 5.849

5.  The effect of total sleep deprivation on cognitive functions in normal adult male subjects.

Authors:  D J Kim; H P Lee; M S Kim; Y J Park; H J Go; K S Kim; S P Lee; J H Chae; C T Lee
Journal:  Int J Neurosci       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 2.292

6.  Age-related changes in the time course of vigilant attention during 40 hours without sleep in men.

Authors:  Martin Adam; Julia V Rétey; Ramin Khatami; Hans-Peter Landolt
Journal:  Sleep       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 5.849

7.  Microstructure of frontoparietal connections predicts individual resistance to sleep deprivation.

Authors:  Jiaolong Cui; Olga Tkachenko; Hannah Gogel; Maia Kipman; Lily A Preer; Mareen Weber; Shreya C Divatia; Lauren A Demers; Elizabeth A Olson; Jennifer L Buchholz; John S Bark; Isabelle M Rosso; Scott L Rauch; William D S Killgore
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2014-11-21       Impact factor: 6.556

8.  Reaction time variability in epileptic and brain-damaged patients.

Authors:  P Bruhn; O A Parsons
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  1977-12       Impact factor: 4.027

9.  Neurocognitive consequences of sleep deprivation.

Authors:  Namni Goel; Hengyi Rao; Jeffrey S Durmer; David F Dinges
Journal:  Semin Neurol       Date:  2009-09-09       Impact factor: 3.420

10.  Classifying attentional vulnerability to total sleep deprivation using baseline features of Psychomotor Vigilance Test performance.

Authors:  Eric Chern-Pin Chua; Jason P Sullivan; Jeanne F Duffy; Elizabeth B Klerman; Steven W Lockley; Bruce S Kristal; Charles A Czeisler; Joshua J Gooley
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  5 in total

1.  Left Ventricular Ejection Time Measured by Echocardiography Differentiates Neurobehavioral Resilience and Vulnerability to Sleep Loss and Stress.

Authors:  Erika M Yamazaki; Kathleen M Rosendahl-Garcia; Courtney E Casale; Laura E MacMullen; Adrian J Ecker; James N Kirkpatrick; Namni Goel
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 4.566

2.  Cortisol and C-Reactive Protein Vary During Sleep Loss and Recovery but Are Not Markers of Neurobehavioral Resilience.

Authors:  Erika M Yamazaki; Caroline A Antler; Courtney E Casale; Laura E MacMullen; Adrian J Ecker; Namni Goel
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2021-11-29       Impact factor: 4.566

3.  The 3-Minute Psychomotor Vigilance Test Demonstrates Inadequate Convergent Validity Relative to the 10-Minute Psychomotor Vigilance Test Across Sleep Loss and Recovery.

Authors:  Caroline A Antler; Erika M Yamazaki; Courtney E Casale; Tess E Brieva; Namni Goel
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 4.677

4.  Trait Anxiety Does Not Predict the Anxiogenic Response to Sleep Deprivation.

Authors:  Tina Sundelin; Benjamin C Holding
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 3.617

Review 5.  Genetic Markers of Differential Vulnerability to Sleep Loss in Adults.

Authors:  Courtney E Casale; Namni Goel
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-08-26       Impact factor: 4.096

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.