The 3-Minute Psychomotor Vigilance Test Demonstrates Inadequate Convergent Validity Relative to the 10-Minute Psychomotor Vigilance Test Across Sleep Loss and Recovery.

The Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT) is a widely used behavioral attention measure, with the 10-min (PVT-10) and 3-min (PVT-3) as two commonly used versions. The PVT-3 may be comparable to the PVT-10, though its convergent validity relative to the PVT-10 has not been explicitly assessed. For the first time, we utilized repeated measures correlation (rmcorr) to evaluate intra-individual associations between PVT-10 and PVT-3 versions across total sleep deprivation (TSD), chronic sleep restriction (SR) and multiple consecutive days of recovery. Eighty-three healthy adults (mean ± SD, 34.7 ± 8.9 years; 36 females) received two baseline nights (B1-B2), five SR nights (SR1-SR5), 36 h TSD, and four recovery nights (R1-R4) between sleep loss conditions. The PVT-10 and PVT-3 were completed every 2 h during wakefulness. Rmcorr compared responses on two frequently used, sensitive PVT metrics: reaction time (RT) via response speed (1/RT) and lapses (RT > 500 ms on the PVT-10 and > 355 ms on the PVT-3) by day (e.g., B2), by study phase (e.g., SR1-SR5), and by time point (1000-2000 h). PVT 1/RT correlations were generally stronger than those for lapses. The majority of correlations (48/50 [96%] for PVT lapses and 38/50 [76%] for PVT 1/RT) were values below 0.70, indicating validity issues. Overall, the PVT-3 demonstrated inadequate convergent validity with the "gold standard" PVT-10 across two different types of sleep loss and across extended recovery. Thus, the PVT-3 is not interchangeable with the PVT-10 for assessing behavioral attention performance during sleep loss based on the design of our study and the metrics we evaluated. Our results have substantial implications for design and measure selection in laboratory and applied settings, including those involving sleep deprivation.

Raw scores on subjective sleepiness, fatigue, and vigor metrics consistently define resilience and vulnerability to sleep loss.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Although trait-like individual differences in subjective responses to sleep restriction (SR) and total sleep deprivation (TSD) exist, reliable characterizations remain elusive. We comprehensively compared multiple methods for defining resilience and vulnerability by subjective metrics. METHODS: A total of 41 adults participated in a 13-day experiment: 2 baseline, 5 SR, 4 recovery, and one 36 h TSD night. The Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS) and the Profile of Mood States Fatigue (POMS-F) and Vigor (POMS-V) were administered every 2 h. Three approaches (Raw Score [average SR score], Change from Baseline [average SR minus average baseline score], and Variance [intraindividual SR score variance]), and six thresholds (±1 standard deviation, and the highest/lowest scoring 12.5%, 20%, 25%, 33%, and 50%) categorized Resilient/Vulnerable groups. Kendall's tau-b correlations compared the group categorization's concordance within and between KSS, POMS-F, and POMS-V scores. Bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrapped t-tests compared group scores. RESULTS: There were significant correlations between all approaches at all thresholds for POMS-F, between Raw Score and Change from Baseline approaches for KSS, and between Raw Score and Variance approaches for POMS-V. All Resilient groups defined by the Raw Score approach had significantly better scores throughout the study, notably including during baseline and recovery, whereas the two other approaches differed by measure, threshold, or day. Between-measure correlations varied in strength by measure, approach, or threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Only the Raw Score approach consistently distinguished Resilient/Vulnerable groups at baseline, during sleep loss, and during recovery‒‒we recommend this approach as an effective method for subjective resilience/vulnerability categorization. All approaches created comparable categorizations for fatigue, some were comparable for sleepiness, and none were comparable for vigor. Fatigue and vigor captured resilience/vulnerability similarly to sleepiness but not each other.

Concordance of multiple methods to define resiliency and vulnerability to sleep loss depends on Psychomotor Vigilance Test metric.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Sleep restriction (SR) and total sleep deprivation (TSD) reveal well-established individual differences in Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT) performance. While prior studies have used different methods to categorize such resiliency/vulnerability, none have systematically investigated whether these methods categorize individuals similarly. METHODS: Forty-one adults participated in a 13-day laboratory study consisting of two baseline, five SR, four recovery, and one 36 h TSD night. The PVT was administered every 2 h during wakefulness. Three approaches (Raw Score [average SR performance], Change from Baseline [average SR minus average baseline performance], and Variance [intraindividual variance of SR performance]), and within each approach, six thresholds (±1 standard deviation and the best/worst performing 12.5%, 20%, 25%, 33%, and 50%) classified Resilient/Vulnerable groups. Kendall's tau-b correlations examined the concordance of group categorizations of approaches within and between PVT lapses and 1/reaction time (RT). Bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrapped t-tests compared group performance. RESULTS: Correlations comparing the approaches ranged from moderate to perfect for lapses and zero to moderate for 1/RT. Defined by all approaches, the Resilient groups had significantly fewer lapses on nearly all study days. Defined by the Raw Score approach only, the Resilient groups had significantly faster 1/RT on all study days. Between-measures comparisons revealed significant correlations between the Raw Score approach for 1/RT and all approaches for lapses. CONCLUSION: The three approaches defining vigilant attention resiliency/vulnerability to sleep loss resulted in groups comprised of similar individuals for PVT lapses but not for 1/RT. Thus, both method and metric selection for defining vigilant attention resiliency/vulnerability to sleep loss is critical.

Cortisol and C-Reactive Protein Vary During Sleep Loss and Recovery but Are Not Markers of Neurobehavioral Resilience.

Cortisol and C-reactive protein (CRP) typically change during total sleep deprivation (TSD) and psychological stress; however, it remains unknown whether these biological markers can differentiate robust individual differences in neurobehavioral performance and self-rated sleepiness resulting from these stressors. Additionally, little is known about cortisol and CRP recovery after TSD. In our study, 32 healthy adults (ages 27-53; mean ± SD, 35.1 ± 7.1 years; 14 females) participated in a highly controlled 5-day experiment in the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA), a high-fidelity National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) space analog isolation facility, consisting of two baseline nights, 39 h TSD, and two recovery nights. Psychological stress was induced by a modified Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) on the afternoon of TSD. Salivary cortisol and plasma CRP were obtained at six time points, before (pre-study), during [baseline, the morning of TSD (TSD AM), the afternoon of TSD (TSD PM), and recovery], and after (post-study) the experiment. A neurobehavioral test battery, including measures of behavioral attention and cognitive throughput, and a self-report measure of sleepiness, was administered 11 times. Resilient and vulnerable groups were defined by a median split on the average TSD performance or sleepiness score. Low and high pre-study cortisol and CRP were defined by a median split on respective values at pre-study. Cortisol and CRP both changed significantly across the study, with cortisol, but not CRP, increasing during TSD. During recovery, cortisol levels did not return to pre-TSD levels, whereas CRP levels did not differ from baseline. When sex was added as a between-subject factor, the time × sex interaction was significant for cortisol. Resilient and vulnerable groups did not differ in cortisol and CRP, and low and high pre-study cortisol/CRP groups did not differ on performance tasks or self-reported sleepiness. Thus, both cortisol and CRP reliably changed in a normal, healthy population as a result of sleep loss; however, cortisol and CRP were not markers of neurobehavioral resilience to TSD and stress in this study.

Cognitive throughput and working memory raw scores consistently differentiate resilient and vulnerable groups to sleep loss.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Substantial individual differences exist in cognitive deficits due to sleep restriction (SR) and total sleep deprivation (TSD), with various methods used to define such neurobehavioral differences. We comprehensively compared numerous methods for defining cognitive throughput and working memory resiliency and vulnerability. METHODS: Forty-one adults participated in a 13-day experiment: 2 baseline, 5 SR, 4 recovery, and one 36 h TSD night. The Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) and Digit Span Test (DS) were administered every 2 h. Three approaches (Raw Score [average SR performance], Change from Baseline [average SR minus average baseline performance], and Variance [intraindividual variance of SR performance]), and six thresholds (±1 standard deviation, and the best/worst performing 12.5%, 20%, 25%, 33%, 50%) classified Resilient/Vulnerable groups. Kendall's tau-b correlations compared the group categorizations' concordance within and between DSST number correct and DS total number correct. Bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrapped t-tests compared group performance. . RESULTS: The approaches generally did not categorize the same participants into Resilient/Vulnerable groups within or between measures. The Resilient groups categorized by the Raw Score approach had significantly better DSST and DS performance across all thresholds on all study days, while the Resilient groups categorized by the Change from Baseline approach had significantly better DSST and DS performance for several thresholds on most study days. By contrast, the Variance approach showed no significant DSST and DS performance group differences. CONCLUSION: Various approaches to define cognitive throughput and working memory resilience/vulnerability to sleep loss are not synonymous. The Raw Score approach can be reliably used to differentiate resilient and vulnerable groups using DSST and DS performance during sleep loss.

Residual, differential neurobehavioral deficits linger after multiple recovery nights following chronic sleep restriction or acute total sleep deprivation.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The amount of recovery sleep needed to fully restore well-established neurobehavioral deficits from sleep loss remains unknown, as does whether the recovery pattern differs across measures after total sleep deprivation (TSD) and chronic sleep restriction (SR). METHODS: In total, 83 adults received two baseline nights (10-12-hour time in bed [TIB]) followed by five 4-hour TIB SR nights or 36-hour TSD and four recovery nights (R1-R4; 12-hour TIB). Neurobehavioral tests were completed every 2 hours during wakefulness and a Maintenance of Wakefulness Test measured physiological sleepiness. Polysomnography was collected on B2, R1, and R4 nights. RESULTS: TSD and SR produced significant deficits in cognitive performance, increases in self-reported sleepiness and fatigue, decreases in vigor, and increases in physiological sleepiness. Neurobehavioral recovery from SR occurred after R1 and was maintained for all measures except Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT) lapses and response speed, which failed to completely recover. Neurobehavioral recovery from TSD occurred after R1 and was maintained for all cognitive and self-reported measures, except for vigor. After TSD and SR, R1 recovery sleep was longer and of higher efficiency and better quality than R4 recovery sleep. CONCLUSIONS: PVT impairments from SR failed to reverse completely; by contrast, vigor did not recover after TSD; all other deficits were reversed after sleep loss. These results suggest that TSD and SR induce sustained, differential biological, physiological, and/or neural changes, which remarkably are not reversed with chronic, long-duration recovery sleep. Our findings have critical implications for the population at large and for military and health professionals.

Left Ventricular Ejection Time Measured by Echocardiography Differentiates Neurobehavioral Resilience and Vulnerability to Sleep Loss and Stress.

There are substantial individual differences (resilience and vulnerability) in performance resulting from sleep loss and psychosocial stress, but predictive potential biomarkers remain elusive. Similarly, marked changes in the cardiovascular system from sleep loss and stress include an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. It remains unknown whether key hemodynamic markers, including left ventricular ejection time (LVET), stroke volume (SV), heart rate (HR), cardiac index (CI), blood pressure (BP), and systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI), differ in resilient vs. vulnerable individuals and predict differential performance resilience with sleep loss and stress. We investigated for the first time whether the combination of total sleep deprivation (TSD) and psychological stress affected a comprehensive set of hemodynamic measures in healthy adults, and whether these measures differentiated neurobehavioral performance in resilient and vulnerable individuals. Thirty-two healthy adults (ages 27-53; 14 females) participated in a 5-day experiment in the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA), a high-fidelity National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) space analog isolation facility, consisting of two baseline nights, 39 h TSD, and two recovery nights. A modified Trier Social Stress Test induced psychological stress during TSD. Cardiovascular measure collection [SV, HR, CI, LVET, BP, and SVRI] and neurobehavioral performance testing (including a behavioral attention task and a rating of subjective sleepiness) occurred at six and 11 timepoints, respectively. Individuals with longer pre-study LVET (determined by a median split on pre-study LVET) tended to have poorer performance during TSD and stress. Resilient and vulnerable groups (determined by a median split on average TSD performance) showed significantly different profiles of SV, HR, CI, and LVET. Importantly, LVET at pre-study, but not other hemodynamic measures, reliably differentiated neurobehavioral performance during TSD and stress, and therefore may be a biomarker. Future studies should investigate whether the non-invasive marker, LVET, determines risk for adverse health outcomes.

Robust stability of trait-like vulnerability or resilience to common types of sleep deprivation in a large sample of adults.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Sleep loss produces large individual differences in neurobehavioral responses, with marked vulnerability or resilience among individuals. Such differences are stable with repeated exposures to acute total sleep deprivation (TSD) or chronic sleep restriction (SR) within short (weeks) and long (years) intervals. Whether trait-like responses are observed to commonly experienced types of sleep loss and across various demographically defined groups remains unknown. METHODS: Eighty-three adults completed two baseline nights (10 h-12 h time-in-bed, TIB) followed by five 4 h TIB SR nights or 36 h TSD. Participants then received four 12-h TIB recovery nights followed by five SR nights or 36 h TSD, in counterbalanced order to the first sleep loss sequence. Neurobehavioral tests were completed every 2 h during wakefulness. RESULTS: Participants who displayed neurobehavioral vulnerability to TSD displayed vulnerability to SR, evidenced by substantial to near perfect intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs; 78%-91% across measures). Sex, race, age, body mass index (BMI), season, and sleep loss order did not impact ICCs significantly. Individuals exhibited significant consistency of responses within, but not between, performance and self-reported domains. CONCLUSIONS: Using the largest, most diverse sample to date, we demonstrate for the first time the remarkable stability of phenotypic neurobehavioral responses to commonly experienced sleep loss types, across demographic variables and different performance and self-reported measures. Since sex, race, age, BMI, and season did not affect ICCs, these variables are not useful for determining stability of responses to sleep loss, underscoring the criticality of biological predictors. Our findings inform mathematical models and are relevant for the general population and military and health professions.