Cited by 2Sleep and Work-Related FatigueSleep and Wakefulness ResearchMind wandering and attention

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 79 of the 80 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; 1 of the 42 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Sleep deprivation alters utilization of negative feedback in risky decision-making

Open access
Xu, Wenhao, Wang, Lubin, Yang, Liu, Zhu, Yuyang, Chen, Pinhong·2024·Frontiers in Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Sleep loss has sometimes catastrophic effects on risky decision-making. However, it is unknown to what extent such deficits are exacerbated with increasing duration of sleep deprivation (SD) and whether sustained vigilant attention mediates this sleep deprivation-induced deficit. Methods: The present study aimed to investigate the effect of 36 hours of SD on 37 male college students’ arousal, emotion, vigilant attention, and risky decision-making, using the Psychomotor Vigilance Test, the Game of Dice Task, and scales assessing fatigue, sleep, and emotions. Results: Compared to baseline, SD significantly increased sleepiness, fatigue, and negative emotions, decreased positive emotions and vigilant attention, and led to a shift toward risky decision-making, and these effects often appeared 15 or 20 hours after SD. Interestingly, participants’ ability to employ positive feedback was maintained, whereas their performance to utilize negative feedback was impaired even after 8 hours of sleep deprivation. Meanwhile, vigilant attention acted as a mediator between SD and risky decision-making (z = -1.97, 95% [-6.00, -0.30]). Discussion: These results suggest that sleep-deprived individuals are unable to use negative feedback to optimize their judgments, which may account for their poor decision-making under risk.

Verified 2026-11-11 · 1 reference not checked yet

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In 37 male college students, 36 hours of sleep deprivation increased sleepiness, fatigue, pressure, and negative affect, decreased positive affect and vigilant attention, and shifted decision-making toward risk. Negative feedback use was impaired from 8 hours of sleep deprivation, while positive feedback use was maintained, and vigilant attention partially mediated the sleep deprivation–risky decision-making relationship.

Key findings

  • Sleep deprivation significantly increased fatigue [F(6,111)=24.49, p<0.001], sleepiness [F(6,137)=15.60, p<0.001], and pressure [F(6,160)=6.13, p<0.001]; compared with baseline, these were significant at 15, 20, 25, 32, and 36 hours, with the 36th hour highest for fatigue (t=9.56) and sleepiness (t=8.15, p<0.001).
  • POMS showed increased negative emotion subscales and decreased positive affect subscales with sleep deprivation (ps<0.01); fatigue and vigor changed significantly from 8 hours, anger and self-esteem from 15 hours, depression from 20 hours, and confusion and tension from 25 hours (ps<0.05).
  • PVT reaction times differed across time [F(6,181)=5.20, p<0.001], with significant differences from baseline at 20, 25, 32, and 36 hours (ps<0.01). GDT negative feedback frequency differed across time [F(6,137)=3.01, p<0.01] and was significantly lower than baseline at 8, 15, 20, 25, and 32 hours (ps<0.05); GDT net scores differed across time [F(6,130)=3.15, p<0.01] and were significantly lower than baseline at 20, 32, and 36 hours (ps<0.05). Positive feedback frequency did not change after sleep deprivation.
  • Vigilant attention partially mediated the effect of sleep deprivation on risky decision-making (Sobel test, z=-1.97, p<0.05; bias-corrected bootstrap 95% CI [-6.00, -0.30]).

Methods

  • Thirty-seven male college students in Beijing, China (age 23.18 ± 1.98; BMI 21.50 ± 3.04), with no history of mental health, neurological, or organic disease; participants kept a regular sleep schedule and refrained from alcohol, caffeine, and chocolate for at least 1 week before the study.
  • In-laboratory 36-hour sleep deprivation from 7:00 AM, with measures at baseline, 8, 15, 20, 25, 32, and 36 hours: Stanford Sleepiness Scale, stress/fatigue ratings, abbreviated Profile of Mood States, 5-minute Psychomotor Vigilance Test (50 trials), and Game of Dice Task (18 rounds with explicit gain/loss rules).
  • Mixed linear models with AR(1) covariance, time as a fixed effect, random intercept, and LSD post hoc comparisons; correlation/partial correlation analyses; mediation analysis using MEMORE Model 1 for two-instance repeated measures with 5,000 bootstrap resamples.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the number of participants was limited due to the long experiment and many test items, so the mediation effect of vigilant attention is exploratory; subjective scales were sensitive within subjects but between-subject differences were small, reducing correlations with other indicators; and the college-student sample has low ecological validity, with future research needed in workers, doctors, and other groups.
  • Evident from the text: the study used a single-arm, within-subject design without a non-sleep-deprived control group, and only male participants were included, limiting generalizability to women.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1307408

Cites

79 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Different mental states changed with SD. We measured 7 time points: baseline, 8 hours, 15 hours, 20 hours, 25 hours, 32 hours, and 36 hours during SD. Pressure, fatigue, and sleepiness increased significantly with increasing duration of SD.
Figure 1 Different mental states changed with SD. We measured 7 time points: baseline, 8 hours, 15 hours, 20 hours, 25 hours, 32 hours, and 36 hours during SD. Pressure, fatigue, and sleepiness increased significantly with increasing duration of SD.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Different moods change with SD. Negative emotion includes tension, fatigue, anger, depression, and confusion; positive affection includes vigor and esteem-related affect. We measured 7 time points, including baseline, 8 hours, 15 hours, 20 hours, 25 hours, 32 hours, and 36 hours during SD. Among them, vigor and self-esteem showed a downward trend, while other moods showed an upward trend.
Figure 2 Different moods change with SD. Negative emotion includes tension, fatigue, anger, depression, and confusion; positive affection includes vigor and esteem-related affect. We measured 7 time points, including baseline, 8 hours, 15 hours, 20 hours, 25 hours, 32 hours, and 36 hours during SD. Among them, vigor and self-esteem showed a downward trend, while other moods showed an upward trend.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 With SD, the response to the PVT changes. From 20 hours of SD, there were significant differences in the duration of deprivation from baseline. **p<01, ***p<.001.
Figure 3 With SD, the response to the PVT changes. From 20 hours of SD, there were significant differences in the duration of deprivation from baseline. **p<01, ***p<.001.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 The changing trend of frequency of positive and negative feedback and net score with SD. (A) illustrates that the frequency of positive feedback did not change after SD. (B) represents that the frequency of positive feedback decreased after 8 hours of SD. (C) illustrates that the net score decreased significantly after 20 hours of SD. *p<.05, **p<01.
Figure 4 The changing trend of frequency of positive and negative feedback and net score with SD. (A) illustrates that the frequency of positive feedback did not change after SD. (B) represents that the frequency of positive feedback decreased after 8 hours of SD. (C) illustrates that the net score decreased significantly after 20 hours of SD. *p<.05, **p<01.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 The mediating effects of vigilant attention on SD and risk decision-making using repeated measurements. SD was divided into baseline and 36th hours. Vigilant attention used with RTs of PVT indicator. Risky decision-making used with the net score of GDT indicator. Vigilant attention acted as a mediator between SD and risky decision-making. *p<.05, **p<01.
Figure 5 The mediating effects of vigilant attention on SD and risk decision-making using repeated measurements. SD was divided into baseline and 36th hours. Vigilant attention used with RTs of PVT indicator. Risky decision-making used with the net score of GDT indicator. Vigilant attention acted as a mediator between SD and risky decision-making. *p<.05, **p<01.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

44 Own result · 14 Check pending · 13 Own interpretation · 5 Own method · 5 No basis given · 3 Not checked yet · 2 No full text of the sources · 1 Supported so far

Verify all 24 references — free account
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 25
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 13
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
31 of 31
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    It is unknown to what extent sleep deprivation-induced deficits in risky decision-making are exacerbated with increasing duration of sleep deprivation and whether sustained vigilant attention mediates this deficit.

    “However, it is unknown to what extent such deficits are exacerbated with increasing duration of sleep deprivation (SD) and whether sustained vigilant attention mediates this sleep deprivation-induced deficit.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Few previous studies collected data multiple times during sleep deprivation due to the complexity of the sleep deprivation process and the negative emotions of participants.

    “According to a summary of previous studies, few studies collected data multiple times due to the complexity of the SD process and the negative emotions of the participants.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Attention, memory, thinking, and other cognitive capabilities must work together to make risky choices.

    “Attention, memory, thinking, and other cognitive capabilities must work together to make risky choices.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    When people rely too much on their intuition, they frequently have a propensity to ignore or undervalue the dangers that could come with losses because they are more concerned with the possibility of maximizing rewards.

    “When people rely too much on their intuition, they frequently have a propensity to ignore or undervalue the dangers that could come with losses because they are more concerned with the possibility of maximizing rewards (e.g., earning points in the GDT).”
4 of 4

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(6, 111) = 24.49reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(6,111)=24.49, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(6, 137) = 15.6reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(6,137)=15.60, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(6, 160) = 6.13reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(6,160)=6.13, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(6, 181) = 5.2reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(6,181) = 5.20, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(6, 137) = 3.01reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .009

    “F(6,137)=3.01, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(6, 130) = 3.15reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .006

    “F(6,130) = 3.15, p < .01”

  • Consistentz = -1.97reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .049

    “z = -1.97, p < .05”

7 of 7

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 80 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Weber, 2002, A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors, J Behav decision making, 15, 10.1002/bdm.v15:4 · DOI
  2. Roszkowski, 2010, Risk perception and risk tolerance changes attributable to the 2008 economic crisis: A subtle but critical difference, Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 64, 42
  3. Kahneman, 2011, Thinking, fast and slow

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 2

Metadata

Authors
Xu, W., Wang, L., Yang, L., Zhu, Y., & Chen, P.
Affiliations
  • Institute of Basic Medical Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CN)
  • Air Force Medical University (CN)
Corresponding author
Chen, Pinhong
Venue
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Published
2024-11-19
Volume
15
Pages
1307408-1307408
ISSN
1664-0640 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4404509445
Cited by
2
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
0.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Aeronautical Science Foundation of China (61673391, JCKY2019548B001)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Sleep and Wakefulness Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
Keywords
sleep deprivation, risky decision making, negative feedback, positive feedback, vigilant attention, arousal, emotions, fatigue, sleepiness, Game of Dice Task, psychomotor vigilance test

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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