The DOI matches its Crossref record.
0278 Changes in Sleep Architecture During Long-Duration Spaceflight
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Previous projects have shown that astronauts sleep significantly worse in mission than on Earth. However, it is unclear how sleep architecture is influenced by microgravity. Such information could inform our understanding of the adaptive mechanisms NREM and REM sleep on Earth. We investigated how sleep architecture is affected during spaceflight relative to on Earth. Methods Sleep architecture was assessed using the Nightcap monitor before (pre-flight, n=113 nights), during (in-flight, n=68 night), and after (post-flight, n=61 nights) missions aboard the Mir space station for four cosmonauts and one astronaut. We compared hand-scored REM/NREM/wake staging in/post-flight to a pre-flight baseline using mixed-effects regression to account for subject variability. We also used mixed-effects modeling to assess changes over time in different phases of the mission. Results Participants averaged an hour less sleep in space (5.4 ± 0.66) compared to pre-flight (6.6 ± 0.70; p < .0001) and spent significantly more time awake in bed, leading to a 20.8% reduction in sleep efficiency. Sleep architecture was also affected by spaceflight: percentages of time in bed for NREM and REM decreased significantly by 9.9% and 26.6% respectively. REM latency nearly doubled during spaceflight to 88 ± 3 minutes. All metrics were stable across the in-flight phase, with the exception of an increase in sleep latency (β: 0.47; p = 0.0009) and a decrease in time in bed (β = 0.85; p < .0001). Conclusion These data substantiate previous findings focused on sleep continuity in microgravity. A variety of metrics demonstrate worse sleep in space. NREM and REM time significantly decreased alongside an increase in wakefulness, but the relative proportion of these stages also changed significantly: REM sleep suffered more than NREM in spaceflight conditions. These longitudinal data add value to our nebulous understanding of how sleep functions in microgravity. Support Mary Gordon Roberts Fellowship, NAS 9-19406, NIMH #MH-48,832, The MacArthur Foundation Mind-Body Network, and Healthdyne Technologies
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In five crewmembers on Mir, the crew had an hour less sleep in space (5.4 ± 0.66 h) compared to pre-flight (6.6 ± 0.70 h) (p < 0.0001).
“The analysis showed that the crew had an hour less sleep in space (5.4 ± 0.66 h) compared to pre-flight (6.6 ± 0.70 h) (p < 0.0001).”
In spaceflight, percentages of time in bed for REM sleep and NREM sleep decreased by 26.6% and 9.9%, respectively, compared to pre-flight.
“Additionally, percentages of time in bed for REM sleep and NREM sleep in spaceflight decreased by 26.6% and 9.9%, respectively, compared to pre-flight.”
REM latency during spaceflight nearly doubled to 88 ± 3 min compared to pre-flight.
“Also compared to pre-flight, REM latency during spaceflight nearly doubled, to 88 ± 3 min [7].”
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Albornoz-Miranda, M., Parrao, D., & Taverne, M. (2023) · Sleep Medicine: X · doi:10.1016/j.sleepx.2023.100080 · Cited by 17
“Also compared to preflight, REM latency during spaceflight nearly doubled, to 88 ± 3 min [7].”
BackgroundThe futuristic manifolds of REM sleep
Parrino, L., & Rosenzweig, I. (2024) · Journal of Sleep Research · doi:10.1111/jsr.14271 · Cited by 2
“On average, in space, time in REM sleep is decreased, and REM presents with aberrant micro-structure (Jones et al., 2022; Stickgold et al., 2020).”
Caswell, G. M. (2024) · International Journal of Geriatrics and Gerontology · doi:10.29011/2577-0748.100075
Metadata
- Authors
- Piltch, O., Flynn-Evans, E., & Stickgold, R.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, CA
- ORCID
- Stickgold, R
- Venue
- SLEEP
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2020-04
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- Supplement_1
- Pages
- A105-A106
- ISSN
- 0161-8105 (ISSN-L)
- 1550-9109
- OpenAlex
- W3029867687
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 0.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- SLEEP (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Spaceflight effects on biology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
- Keywords
- sleep architecture, long-duration spaceflight, microgravity, REM sleep, NREM sleep, sleep efficiency, REM latency, sleep latency, time in bed, astronauts, cosmonauts, International Space Station, sleep continuity
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