Lockley S W, Skene D J, Arendt J
School of Biological Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
J Sleep Res. 1999 Sep;8(3):175-83. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2869.1999.00155.x.
Sleep is often assessed in circadian rhythm studies and long-term monitoring is required to detect any changes in sleep over time. The present study aims to investigate the ability of the two most commonly employed methods, actigraphy and sleep logs, to identify circadian sleep/wake disorders and measure changes in sleep patterns over time. In addition, the study assesses whether sleep measured by both methods shows the same relationship with an established circadian phase marker, urinary 6-sulphatoxymelatonin. A total of 49 registered blind subjects with different types of circadian rhythms were studied daily for at least four weeks. Grouped analysis of all study days for all subjects was performed for all sleep parameters (1062-1150 days data per sleep parameter). Good correlations were observed when comparing the measurement of sleep timing and duration (sleep onset, sleep offset, night sleep duration, day-time nap duration). However, the methods were poorly correlated in their assessment of transitions between sleep and wake states (sleep latency, number and duration of night awakenings, number of day-time naps). There were also large and inconsistent differences in the measurement of the absolute sleep parameters. Overall, actigraphs recorded a shorter sleep latency, advanced onset time, increased number and duration of night awakenings, delayed offset, increased night sleep duration and increased number and duration of naps compared with the subjective sleep logs. Despite this, there was good agreement between the methods for measuring changes in sleep patterns over time. In particular, the methods agreed when assessing changes in sleep in relation to a circadian phase marker (the 6-sulphatoxymelatonin (aMT6s) rhythm) in both entrained (n = 30) and free-running (n = 4) subjects.
在昼夜节律研究中，睡眠情况常被评估，并且需要长期监测以检测睡眠随时间的任何变化。本研究旨在调查两种最常用方法（活动记录仪和睡眠日志）识别昼夜睡眠/觉醒障碍以及测量睡眠模式随时间变化的能力。此外，该研究评估两种方法测量的睡眠与已确立的昼夜节律相位标记物——尿6-硫酸氧褪黑素之间是否呈现相同的关系。共有49名登记的盲人受试者参与研究，他们具有不同类型的昼夜节律，每天接受至少四周的研究。对所有受试者所有研究日的所有睡眠参数进行分组分析（每个睡眠参数有1062 - 1150天的数据）。在比较睡眠时间和时长（入睡时间、起床时间、夜间睡眠时间、白天小睡时长）的测量结果时，观察到良好的相关性。然而，在评估睡眠与觉醒状态之间的转换（睡眠潜伏期、夜间觉醒次数和时长、白天小睡次数）时，这两种方法的相关性较差。在绝对睡眠参数的测量上也存在巨大且不一致的差异。总体而言，与主观睡眠日志相比，活动记录仪记录的睡眠潜伏期更短、入睡时间提前、夜间觉醒次数和时长增加、起床时间延迟、夜间睡眠时间增加以及小睡次数和时长增加。尽管如此，两种方法在测量睡眠模式随时间的变化方面具有良好的一致性。特别是，在评估与昼夜节律相位标记物（6-硫酸氧褪黑素（aMT6s）节律）相关的睡眠变化时，两种方法在节律稳定的受试者（n = 30）和自由运行的受试者（n = 4）中均达成一致。
