English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

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.

Predictors of interindividual differences in vulnerability to neurobehavioral consequences of chronic partial sleep restriction