ABSTRACT
Objectives: Sleepiness is associated with decreased cognitive abilities and remains one of the main causes of fatal road accidents. The tools currently available to assess sleepiness, such as questionnaires, are subject to intra- and inter-individual variability, while multiple sleep latency tests are only feasible in few sleep laboratories. The main objective of this study was to explore new potential markers (neurocognitive, biological) to objectively assess sleepiness in drivers. Methods: A total of 186 drivers (median age 44 years, range 20-74 years, 73% men, 14% obese) were included during a break at a highway service area, in the morning, while on the road for vacation. Questionnaires on sleepiness and sleep characteristics (habitual and on the night before travel), the Bron-Lyon Attention Stability Test (BLAST), and two salivary samples (α-amylase and oxalate) were collected. Associations between measures of sleepiness [Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS)], sleep characteristics, neurocognitive, and biological markers were tested using regression models adjusted for confounding factors. Results: The night before travel, 83% of the drivers reduced their sleep time and 30% slept 5 h or less. The higher the number of miles to be traveled, the higher the decrease, and the shorter the sleep time. The night before travel, 18 and 24% of the drivers complained of poor sleep quality and difficulty falling asleep. The sleep characteristics on the night before travel were associated with the habitual sleep characteristics. At the time of the test, 47% of the drivers scored pathologically on the SSS. Poor sleep quality and difficulty falling asleep the night before travel were associated with increased sleepiness as assessed by the SSS and decreased attentional ability as assessed by the BLAST. No association between salivary markers and acute sleepiness was observed. Conclusions: The sleep characteristics of the night before travel were associated with sleepiness and attentional performance. The SSS and the BLAST could be used by individual drivers in a self-evaluation context. Biological markers showed a high variability and limited association with sleep parameters across subjects, emphasizing the need for within-subject designs to assess their usefulness.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Intellectual Disability (ID) is characterized by deficits in intellectual functions such as reasoning, problem-solving, planning, abstract thinking, judgment, and learning. As new avenues are emerging for treatment of genetically determined ID (such as Down's syndrome or Fragile X syndrome), it is necessary to identify objective reliable and sensitive outcome measures for use in clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: We developed a novel visual analogical reasoning paradigm, inspired by the Progressive Raven's Matrices, but appropriate for Intellectually Disabled patients. This new paradigm assesses reasoning and inhibition abilities in ID patients. METHODS: We performed behavioural analyses for this task (with a reaction time and error rate analysis, Study 1) in 96 healthy controls (adults and typically developed children older than 4) and 41 genetically determined ID patients (Fragile X syndrome, Down syndrome and ARX mutated patients). In order to establish and quantify the cognitive strategies used to solve the task, we also performed an eye-tracking analysis (Study 2). RESULTS: Down syndrome, ARX and Fragile X patients were significantly slower and made significantly more errors than chronological age-matched healthy controls. The effect of inhibition on error rate was greater than the matrix complexity effect in ID patients, opposite to findings in adult healthy controls. Interestingly, ID patients were more impaired by inhibition than mental age-matched healthy controls, but not by the matrix complexity. Eye-tracking analysis made it possible to identify the strategy used by the participants to solve the task. Adult healthy controls used a matrix-based strategy, whereas ID patients used a response-based strategy. Furthermore, etiologic-specific reasoning differences were evidenced between ID patients groups. CONCLUSION: We suggest that this paradigm, appropriate for ID patients and developmental populations as well as adult healthy controls, provides an objective and quantitative assessment of visual analogical reasoning and cognitive inhibition, enabling testing for the effect of pharmacological or behavioural intervention in these specific populations.
