Biological Rhythms Research Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Sleep. 2022 Jan 11;45(1). doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsab249.
Sleep restriction (SR) and total sleep deprivation (TSD) reveal well-established individual differences in Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT) performance. While prior studies have used different methods to categorize such resiliency/vulnerability, none have systematically investigated whether these methods categorize individuals similarly.
Forty-one adults participated in a 13-day laboratory study consisting of two baseline, five SR, four recovery, and one 36 h TSD night. The PVT was administered every 2 h during wakefulness. Three approaches (Raw Score [average SR performance], Change from Baseline [average SR minus average baseline performance], and Variance [intraindividual variance of SR performance]), and within each approach, six thresholds (±1 standard deviation and the best/worst performing 12.5%, 20%, 25%, 33%, and 50%) classified Resilient/Vulnerable groups. Kendall's tau-b correlations examined the concordance of group categorizations of approaches within and between PVT lapses and 1/reaction time (RT). Bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrapped t-tests compared group performance.
Correlations comparing the approaches ranged from moderate to perfect for lapses and zero to moderate for 1/RT. Defined by all approaches, the Resilient groups had significantly fewer lapses on nearly all study days. Defined by the Raw Score approach only, the Resilient groups had significantly faster 1/RT on all study days. Between-measures comparisons revealed significant correlations between the Raw Score approach for 1/RT and all approaches for lapses.
The three approaches defining vigilant attention resiliency/vulnerability to sleep loss resulted in groups comprised of similar individuals for PVT lapses but not for 1/RT. Thus, both method and metric selection for defining vigilant attention resiliency/vulnerability to sleep loss is critical.
睡眠限制（SR）和完全睡眠剥夺（TSD）揭示了精神运动警觉测试（PVT）表现中的既定个体差异。虽然先前的研究使用不同的方法对这种弹性/脆弱性进行分类，但没有一项研究系统地调查这些方法是否对个体进行相似的分类。
41 名成年人参加了一项为期 13 天的实验室研究，包括两个基线、五个 SR、四个恢复和一个 36 小时 TSD 之夜。PVT 在清醒时每 2 小时进行一次。三种方法（原始分数[平均 SR 表现]、从基线变化[平均 SR 减去平均基线表现]和方差[SR 表现的个体内方差]），以及每种方法内，六个阈值（±1 个标准差和表现最好/最差的 12.5%、20%、25%、33%和 50%）将弹性/脆弱性群体分类。肯德尔 tau-b 相关性检验了 PVT 失误和 1/反应时间（RT）内和之间的方法分类的一致性。偏倚校正和加速 bootstrap 检验比较了组间的表现。
比较方法的相关性从失误的中度到完美，1/RT 的零到中度不等。所有方法定义的弹性组在几乎所有研究日的失误次数都明显较少。仅通过原始分数方法定义的弹性组在所有研究日的 1/RT 都明显更快。组间比较显示，1/RT 的原始分数方法与失误的所有方法之间存在显著相关性。
三种方法定义了对睡眠不足的警觉注意力弹性/脆弱性，导致 PVT 失误的组由相似的个体组成，但 1/RT 则不然。因此，定义警觉注意力对睡眠不足的弹性/脆弱性的方法和度量的选择都很关键。
