Effects of acute and chronic sleep deprivation on daytime alertness and cognitive performance of healthy snorers and non-snorers
Abstract
Background Respiratory events during sleep usually lead to micro arousals resulting in consecutive daytime sleepiness even in healthy snorers. The present study investigated the evolution of subjective and objective daytime sleepiness and reaction time in healthy snorers submitted to acute and chronic sleep deprivation.Methods Objective sleepiness was measured by the MSLT, subjective sleepiness by the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS), and reaction time (RT) by the Psychomotor Vigilance Test. Mean sleep latencies, KSS scores and performance were analyzed through repeated measures ANOVAs with one between-factor (snorers and non-snorers) and two within-factors (sleep deprivation [baseline, acute, and chronic sleep deprivation] and time-of-day).Results The findings reveal that sleep deprivation does not enhance snoring but that, during baseline, objective daytime sleepiness is higher in snorers than in non-snorers (shorter sleep latencies) with no difference in subjective assessments. The effects of acute and chronic sleep deprivation on sleep are similar in both groups, but, after acute sleep deprivation, RT and attentional lapses (RT >500 ms) are higher in snorers. Chronic sleep deprivation produces similar results in both groups.Conclusion These results suggest that respiratory efforts may be involved in the increased vulnerability to sleep deprivation of healthy snorers when compared to non-snorers.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Studies that systematically examined the same subjects in both chronic sleep restriction and acute total sleep deprivation reported inconsistent results, likely due to small sample sizes, different populations, varying doses of sleep restriction, and different outcome measures.
“These studies reported inconsistent results, likely due to small sample sizes, different populations, varying doses of sleep restriction, and different outcome measures.”
From Circadian rhythms, sleep deprivation, and human performance (2013) · cites this paper as [178]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 18
- Authors
- Tassi, P., Schimchowitsch, S., Rohmer, O., Elbaz, M., Bonnefond, A., Sagaspe, P., Taillard, J., Léger, D., & Philip, P.
- Affiliations
- Laboratoire de psychologie des cognitions (FR)
- Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (FR)
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Tassi, Patricia
- ORCID
- Venue
- Sleep Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 29-35
- ISSN
- 1389-9457 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2137731003
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 2.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Sleep Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Energie
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
- Keywords
- snoring, sleep deprivation, acute sleep deprivation, chronic sleep deprivation, daytime sleepiness, daytime alertness, reaction time, cognitive performance, attentional lapses, sleep latency, microarousals, healthy adults
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Arousal, Attention, Cognition, Humans, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Sleep Deprivation, Snoring, Case-Control Studies, Polysomnography, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review