Cited by 3Spaceflight effects on biologySleep and related disordersSleep and Work-Related Fatigue

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

0278 Changes in Sleep Architecture During Long-Duration Spaceflight

Piltch, O, Flynn-Evans, E, Stickgold, R·2020·SLEEP

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

Crossref · 10.1093/sleep/zsaa056.276

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Piltch, O., Flynn-Evans, E., & Stickgold, R.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, CA
Venue
SLEEP
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
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