Cited by 231Sleep and Work-Related FatigueSleep and Wakefulness ResearchSleep and related disorders

Effects of rapid versus slow accumulation of eight hours of sleep loss

Drake, Christopher L., Roehrs, Timothy A., Burduvali, Eleni, Bonahoom, Alicia, Rosekind, Mark, Roth, Thomas·2001·Psychophysiology

Abstract

The present study assessed alertness, memory, and performance following three schedules of approximately 8 hr of sleep loss (slow, intermediate, and rapid accumulation) in comparison to an 8-hr time in bed (TIB) sleep schedule. Twelve healthy individuals aged 21-35 completed each of four conditions according to a Latin Square design: no sleep loss (8-hr TIB for 4 nights; 2300-0700), slow (6-hr TIB for 4 nights; 0100-0700), intermediate (4-hr TIB for 2 nights; 0300-0700), and rapid (0-hr TIB for 1 night) sleep loss. On each day, participants completed a multiple sleep latency test (MSLT), a probed-recall memory task, a psychomotor vigilance task, a divided attention task, and the Profile of Mood States. "Rapid" sleep loss produced significantly more impairment on tests of alertness, memory, and performance compared to the "slow" accumulation of a comparable amount of sleep loss. The impairing effects of sleep loss vary as a function of rate, suggesting the presence of a compensatory adaptive mechanism operating in conjunction with the accumulation of a sleep debt.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1469-8986.3860979

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • 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 [180]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Drake, C. L., Roehrs, T. A., Burduvali, E., Bonahoom, A., Rosekind, M., & Roth, T.
Affiliations
Henry Ford Health (US)
Corresponding author
Drake, Christopher L.
Venue
Psychophysiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-11
Volume
38
Issue
6
Pages
979-987
ISSN
  • 0048-5772 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8986
OpenAlex
W2128297482
Cited by
231
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 14
FWCI
11.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01mh059338-05)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH59338-02)
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, sleep debt, alertness, memory impairment, psychomotor vigilance, divided attention, mood states, compensatory adaptation, time in bed
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Arousal, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Psychomotor Performance, Sleep Wake Disorders, Sleep Stages

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