Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 187

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Activity Feedback to the Mammalian Circadian Pacemaker: Influence on Observed Measures of Rhythm Period Length

Edgar, Dale M., Martin, Connie E., Dement, William C.·1991·Journal of Biological Rhythms

Abstract

In the mouse, activity is precisely timed by the circadian clock and is normally most intense in the early subjective night. Since vigorous activity (e.g., wheel running) is thought to induce phase shifts in rodents, the temporal placement of daily exercise/activity could be a determinant of observed circadian rhythm period. The relationship between spontaneous running-wheel activity and the circadian period of free-running rhythms was studied to assess this possibility. With ad libitum access to a running wheel, mice exhibited a free-running period (τ) of 23.43 ± 0.08 hr (mean ± SEM). When running wheels were locked, τ increased (23.88 ± 0.04 hr, p < 0.03), and restoration of ad libitum wheel running again produced a shorter period (τ = 23.56 ± 0.06 hr, p < 0.05). A survey of free- running activity patterns in a population of 100 mice revealed a significant correlation between the observed circadian period and the time of day in which spontaneous wheel running occurred ( r = 0.7314, p < 0.0001). Significantly shorter periods were observed when running was concentrated at the beginning of the subjective night (τ = 23.23 ± 0.04), and longer periods were observed if mice ran late in the subjective night (τ = 23.89 ± 0.04), F (1, 99) = 34.96, p < 0.0001. It was previously believed that the period of the circadian clock was primarily responsive to externally imposed tonic or phasic events. Systematic influences of spontaneous exercise on τ demonstrate that physiological and/or behavioral determinants of circadian timekeeping exist as well.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/074873049100600301

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 187

Metadata

Authors
Edgar, D. M., Martin, C. E., & Dement, W. C.
Venue
Journal of Biological Rhythms
Published
1991-09
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
185-199
ISSN
  • 0748-7304 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-4531
OpenAlex
W2141293300
Cited by
187
References
1
FWCI
6.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Activity Feedback to the Mammalian Circadian Pacemaker: Influence on Observed Measures of Rhythm Period Length. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/074873049100600301
The paper
Edgar, D. M., Martin, C. E., & Dement, W. C. (1991). Activity Feedback to the Mammalian Circadian Pacemaker: Influence on Observed Measures of Rhythm Period Length. Journal of Biological Rhythms. https://doi.org/10.1177/074873049100600301

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.