Neurocognitive consequences of sleep deprivation

Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Seminars in Neurology (Impact Factor: 1.78). 04/2005; 25(1):117-29. DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-867080
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Deficits in daytime performance due to sleep loss are experienced universally and associated with a significant social, financial, and human cost. Microsleeps, sleep attacks, and lapses in cognition increase with sleep loss as a function of state instability. Sleep deprivation studies repeatedly show a variable (negative) impact on mood, cognitive performance, and motor function due to an increasing sleep propensity and destabilization of the wake state. Specific neurocognitive domains including executive attention, working memory, and divergent higher cognitive functions are particularly vulnerable to sleep loss. In humans, functional metabolic and neurophysiological studies demonstrate that neural systems involved in executive function (i.e., prefrontal cortex) are more susceptible to sleep deprivation in some individuals than others. Recent chronic partial sleep deprivation experiments, which more closely replicate sleep loss in society, demonstrate that profound neurocognitive deficits accumulate over time in the face of subjective adaptation to the sensation of sleepiness. Sleep deprivation associated with disease-related sleep fragmentation (i.e., sleep apnea and restless legs syndrome) also results in neurocognitive performance decrements similar to those seen in sleep restriction studies. Performance deficits associated with sleep disorders are often viewed as a simple function of disease severity; however, recent experiments suggest that individual vulnerability to sleep loss may play a more critical role than previously thought.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: his study compares the patterns of crew rest and sleep, psychomotor vigilance performance, and work demands/rest opportunities afforded by two different schedules, the 3-hour on/9-hour off (“3/9”) and the 6-hour on/6-hour off (“6/6”) watchstanding schedules. The study was conducted aboard the USS Jason Dunham, a U.S. Navy destroyer operating in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf during the months of November and December 2012. Of the 122 participants in the overall study, 52 were shift workers using either the 3/9 (n=41) or the 6/6 (n=11) schedules. These 52 individuals are the focus of the current analysis. Although sleep deprivation was evident in both watch schedules, results show that crewmembers on the 3/9 received more sleep than their peers on the 6/6, with 6.46 ± 0.77 hours versus 5.89 ± 0.87 hours, respectively. The 3/9 schedule, compared to the 6/6, was also better in terms of the distribution of sleep episodes across the day. Specifically, crewmembers on the 3/9 received more sleep during nighttime hours, whereas crewmembers on the 6/6 had to sleep during the day to compensate for their lack of sleep during nighttime hours. In terms of work demands, crewmembers on the 6/6 schedule have considerably long workdays, with, on average, 15 hours on duty, which corresponds to approximately 30% more time on duty than allocated in the Navy Standard Work Week (NSWW) criterion (on average, 105 hours compared to 81 hours weekly). The two schedules differed significantly in the variability of psychomotor vigilance performance; specifically, crewmembers on the 6/6 schedule had larger variability than those on the 3/9 in 11 of the 13 Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) metrics analyzed (p<0.05). The average value of the PVT scores was better on the 3/9 compared to the 6/6, but not at statistically significant levels. The findings of this study show that the 3/9 is better than the 6/6 in affording rest and sleep opportunities, sleep hygiene, fatigue levels, psychomotor vigilance performance, work demands, and acceptance from the participants.
  • Source
    Frontiers in Physiology 01/2015; 6:79.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Major depression (MD) is a highly heterogeneous diagnostic category. Diverse symptoms such as sad mood, anhedonia, and fatigue are routinely added to an unweighted sum-score, and cutoffs are used to distinguish between depressed participants and healthy controls. Researchers then investigate outcome variables like MD risk factors, biomarkers, and treatment response in such samples. These practices presuppose that (1) depression is a discrete condition, and that (2) symptoms are interchangeable indicators of this latent disorder. Here I review these two assumptions, elucidate their historical roots, show how deeply engrained they are in psychological and psychiatric research, and document that they contrast with evidence. Depression is not a consistent syndrome with clearly demarcated boundaries, and depression symptoms are not interchangeable indicators of an underlying disorder. Current research practices lump individuals with very different problems into one category, which has contributed to the remarkably slow progress in key research domains such as the development of efficacious antidepressants or the identification of biomarkers for depression. The recently proposed network framework offers an alternative to the problematic assumptions. MD is not understood as a distinct condition, but as heterogeneous symptom cluster that substantially overlaps with other syndromes such as anxiety disorders. MD is not framed as an underlying disease with a number of equivalent indicators, but as a network of symptoms that have direct causal influence on each other: insomnia can cause fatigue which then triggers concentration and psychomotor problems. This approach offers new opportunities for constructing an empirically based classification system and has broad implications for future research.
    Frontiers in Psychology 03/2015; 6(306):1-11. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00309 · 2.80 Impact Factor

Preview (2 Sources)

Available from