Cited by 1,473Sleep and Work-Related FatigueSleep and Wakefulness ResearchSleep and related disorders

Neurocognitive Consequences of Sleep Deprivation

Durmer, Jeffrey S, Dinges, David F·2005·Seminars in Neurology

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-2005-867080

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Durmer, J. S., & Dinges, D. F.
Affiliations
  • Emory University (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
Seminars in Neurology
Published
2005-03
Volume
25
Issue
01
Pages
117-129
ISSN
  • 0271-8235 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-9021
OpenAlex
W4235765131
Cited by
1,473
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 61 · 2025: 87 · 2024: 73 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 123 · 2019: 75 · 2018: 89 · 2017: 83 · 2016: 86 · 2015: 88 · 2014: 81 · 2013: 73 · 2012: 44
FWCI
59.60
Type
journal article
Language
de
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Seminars in Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • National Space Biomedical Research Institute
  • National Institutes of Health
  • School of Medicine, Indiana University
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (R01 NR04281, R01NR004281)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Sleep and Wakefulness Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
Keywords
sleep deprivation, neurocognitive impairment, executive function, working memory, attention, prefrontal cortex, sleep apnea, restless legs syndrome, sleep fragmentation, cognitive performance
MeSH terms
Cognition Disorders, Humans, Sleep Deprivation

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