Article

Effects of an afternoon nap on nighttime alertness and performance in long-haul drivers.

Institute for Circadian Physiology, White Plains, NY 10605, USA.
Accident Analysis & Prevention (Impact Factor: 1.87). 12/2002; 34(6):825-34. DOI: 10.1016/S0001-4575(01)00089-6
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The effects of an afternoon nap on alertness and psychomotor performance were assessed during a simulated night shift. After a night of partial sleep restriction, eight professional long-haul drivers either slept (nap condition) or engaged in sedentary activities (no-nap condition) from 14:00 to 17:00 h. Alertness and performance testing sessions were conducted at 12:00 (pre-nap baseline), 24:00, 02:30, 05:00 and 07:30 h, and followed 2-h runs in a driving simulator. In the nap condition, the subjects showed lower subjective sleepiness and fatigue, as measured by visual analog scales, and faster reaction times and less variability on psychomotor performance tasks. Electrophysiological indices of arousal during the driving runs also reflected the beneficial effects of the afternoon nap, with lower spectral activity in the theta (4-7.75 Hz), alpha (8-11.75 Hz) and fast theta-slow alpha (6-9.75 Hz) frequency bands of the electroencephalogram, indicating higher arousal levels. Thus, a 3-h napping opportunity ending at 17:00 h improved significantly several indices of alertness and performance measured 7-14 h later.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
36 Views
  • Source
    Health. 01/2009; 01(04):284-289.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The impact on health and safety of the combination of chronic sleep deficits and extended working hours has received worldwide attention. Using the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), an in-person household survey using a multistage, stratified, clustered sample design representing the US civilian, non-institutionalized population, the authors estimated the effect of total daily self-reported sleep time and weekly working hours on the risk of a work-related injury. During the survey period 2004-2008, 177,576 persons (ages 18-74) sampled within households reported that they worked at a paid job the previous week and reported their total weekly work hours. A randomly selected adult in each household (n = 75,718) was asked to report his/her usual (average) total daily sleep hours the prior week; complete responses were obtained for 74,415 (98.3%) workers. Weighted annualized work-related injury rates were then estimated across a priori defined categories of both average total daily sleep hours and weekly working hours. To account for the complex sampling design, weighted multiple logistic regression was used to independently estimate the risk of a work-related injury for categories of usual daily sleep duration and weekly working hours, controlling for important covariates and potential confounders of age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, type of pay, industry, occupation (proxy for job risk), body mass index, and the interaction between sleep duration and work hours. Based on the inclusion criteria, there were an estimated 129,950,376 workers annually at risk and 3,634,446 work-related medically treated injury episodes (overall injury rate 2.80/100 workers). Unadjusted annualized injury rates/100 workers across weekly work hours were 2.03 (< or =20 h), 3.01 (20-30 h), 2.45 (31-40 h), 3.45 (40-50 h), 3.71 (50-60 h), and 4.34 (>60 h). With regards to self-reported daily sleep time, the estimated annualized injury rates/100 workers were 7.89 (<5 h sleep), 5.21 (5-5.9 h), 3.62 (6-6.9 h), 2.27 (7-7.9 h), 2.50 (8-8.9 h), 2.22 (9-9.9 h), and 4.72 (>10 h). After controlling for weekly work hours, and aforementioned covariates, significant increases in risk/1 h decrease were observed for several sleep categories. Using 7-7.9 h sleep as reference, the adjusted injury risk (odds ratio [OR] for a worker sleeping a total of <5 h/day was 2.65 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57-4.47), for 5-5.9 h 1.79 (95% CI: 1.22-2.62), and for 6-6.9 h 1.40 (95% CI: 1.10-1.79). No other usual sleep duration categories were significantly different than the reference; however, for >10 h of usual daily sleep, the OR was marginally significantly elevated, 1.82 (95% CI: 0.96-3.47). These results suggest significant increases in work-related injury risk with decreasing usual daily self-reported sleep hours and increasing weekly work hours, independent of industry, occupation, type of pay, sex, age, education, and body mass.
    Chronobiology International 07/2010; 27(5):1013-30. · 4.35 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this review was to examine the evidence for the link between fatigue and safety, especially in transport and occupational settings. For the purposes of this review fatigue was defined as 'a biological drive for recuperative rest'. The review examined the relationship between three major causes of fatigue - sleep homeostasis factors, circadian influences and nature of task effects - and safety outcomes, first looking at accidents and injury and then at adverse effects on performance. The review demonstrated clear evidence for sleep homeostatic effects producing impaired performance and accidents. Nature of task effects, especially tasks requiring sustained attention and monotony, also produced significant performance decrements, but the effects on accidents and/or injury were unresolved because of a lack of studies. The evidence did not support a direct link between circadian-related fatigue influences and performance or safety outcomes and further research is needed to clarify the link. Undoubtedly, circadian variation plays some role in safety outcomes, but the evidence suggests that these effects reflect a combination of time of day and sleep-related factors. Similarly, although some measures of performance show a direct circadian component, others would appear to only do so in combination with sleep-related factors. The review highlighted gaps in the literature and opportunities for further research.
    Accident; analysis and prevention 03/2011; 43(2):498-515. · 1.65 Impact Factor