scholarly journals Changes in Subjective Motivation and Effort During Sleep Restriction Moderate Interindividual Differences in Attentional Performance in Healthy Young Men

2021 ◽  
Vol Volume 13 ◽  
pp. 1117-1136
Author(s):  
Gina Marie Mathew ◽  
Stephen M Strayer ◽  
David S Bailey ◽  
Katherine Buzzell ◽  
Kelly M Ness ◽  
...  
2014 ◽  
Vol 46 ◽  
pp. 345
Author(s):  
Sandra S. de Queiroz ◽  
Francieli Ruiz ◽  
Juliana M.S. Prado ◽  
Radamés V.M. Maciel ◽  
Cristina P.M. Frange ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wessel M. A. van Leeuwen ◽  
Mikael Sallinen ◽  
Jussi Virkkala ◽  
Harri Lindholm ◽  
Ari Hirvonen ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 598 (8) ◽  
pp. 1523-1536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas J. Saner ◽  
Matthew J.‐C. Lee ◽  
Nathan W. Pitchford ◽  
Jujiao Kuang ◽  
Gregory D. Roach ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 2010 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wessel M. A. van Leeuwen ◽  
Christer Hublin ◽  
Mikael Sallinen ◽  
Mikko Härmä ◽  
Ari Hirvonen ◽  
...  

This study identifies the effects of sleep restriction and subsequent recovery sleep on glucose homeostasis, serum leptin levels, and feelings of subjective satiety. Twenty-three healthy young men were allocated to a control group (CON) or an experimental (EXP) group. After two nights of 8 h in bed (baseline, BL), EXP spent 4 h in bed for five days (sleep restriction, SR), followed by two nights of 8 h (recovery, REC). CON spent 8 h in bed throughout the study. Blood samples were taken after the BL, SR, and REC period. In EXP, insulin and insulin-to-glucose ratio increased after SR. IGF-1 levels increased after REC. Leptin levels were elevated after both SR and REC; subjective satiety remained unaffected. No changes were observed in CON. The observed increase of serum IGF-1 and insulin-to-glucose ratio indicates that sleep restriction may result in an increased risk to develop type 2 diabetes.


2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Mccarthy ◽  
Sally Loomis ◽  
Brian Eastwood ◽  
Keith A. Wafford ◽  
Raphaëlle Winsky-Sommerer ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. S35
Author(s):  
F.R.L. Godoi ◽  
F. Soncini ◽  
D.C. Hipólide ◽  
M.G.M. Oliveira ◽  
S. Tufik

PLoS ONE ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (11) ◽  
pp. e28230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karim Zouaoui Boudjeltia ◽  
Brice Faraut ◽  
Maria José Esposito ◽  
Patricia Stenuit ◽  
Michal Dyzma ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 113438
Author(s):  
Patrick N Radcliffe ◽  
Claire C Whitney ◽  
Heather S Fagnant ◽  
Marques A Wilson ◽  
Tracey J Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2009 ◽  
Vol 29 (35) ◽  
pp. 10855-10862 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Bodenmann ◽  
T. Rusterholz ◽  
R. Durr ◽  
C. Stoll ◽  
V. Bachmann ◽  
...  

SLEEP ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Galli ◽  
Christopher W Jones ◽  
Olivia Larson ◽  
Mathias Basner ◽  
David F Dinges

Abstract Interindividual differences in the neurobehavioral response to sleep loss are largely unexplained and phenotypic in nature. Numerous factors have been examined as predictors of differential response to sleep loss, but none have yielded a comprehensive view of the phenomenon. The present study examines the impact of baseline factors, habitual sleep–wake patterns, and homeostatic response to sleep loss on accrued deficits in psychomotor vigilance during chronic partial sleep restriction (SR), in a total of 306 healthy adults that participated in one of three independent laboratory studies. Findings indicate no significant impact of personality, academic intelligence, subjective reports of chronotype, sleepiness and fatigue, performance on working memory, and demographic factors such as sex, ethnicity, and body mass index, on neurobehavioral vulnerability to the negative effects of sleep loss. Only superior baseline performance on the psychomotor vigilance test and ability to sustain wakefulness on the maintenance of wakefulness test were associated with relative resilience to decrements in vigilant attention during SR. Interindividual differences in vulnerability to the effects of sleep loss were not accounted for by prior sleep history, habitual sleep patterns outside of the laboratory, baseline sleep architecture, or homeostatic sleep response during chronic partial SR. A recent theoretical model proposed that sleep–wake modulation may be influenced by competing internal and external demands which may promote wakefulness despite homeostatic and circadian signals for sleep under the right circumstances. Further research is warranted to examine the possibility of interindividual differences in the ability to prioritize external demands for wakefulness in the face of mounting pressure to sleep.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document