Unit for Experimental Psychiatry, Division of Sleep and Chronobiology, Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Sleep. 2022 Jan 11;45(1). doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsab278.
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.
个体之间对睡眠缺失的神经行为反应存在差异，但尚未得到充分解释，且这种差异具有表型特征。许多因素都被作为预测睡眠缺失反应差异的指标进行了研究，但没有一个因素能全面反映这种现象。本研究共纳入了 306 名健康成年人，他们参加了三个独立实验室研究中的其中一个，旨在探讨基线因素、习惯性睡眠-觉醒模式以及对睡眠缺失的生理反应对慢性部分睡眠限制（SR）期间警觉性注意力累积缺陷的影响。研究结果表明，人格、学术智力、主观报告的昼夜类型、嗜睡和疲劳、工作记忆表现以及性别、种族和体重指数等人口统计学因素对睡眠缺失的神经行为易感性没有显著影响。只有在警觉性测试中的基线表现较好，以及在维持清醒度测试中保持清醒的能力，与在 SR 期间警觉性注意力下降时相对具有弹性有关。个体对睡眠缺失影响的脆弱性差异不能用先前的睡眠史、实验室外的习惯性睡眠模式、基线睡眠结构或慢性部分 SR 期间的生理睡眠反应来解释。最近提出的一个理论模型认为，睡眠-觉醒调节可能受到内部和外部竞争需求的影响，即使在有睡眠的生理和昼夜信号的情况下，这些需求也可能促进清醒。有必要进一步研究，以探讨在面临睡眠压力增加时，个体对外界需求优先考虑清醒的能力存在差异的可能性。
