Sleep and performance in simulated Navy watch schedules.

To operate Navy ships 24h per day, watchstanding is needed around the clock, with watch periods reflecting a variety of rotating or fixed shift schedules. The 5/15 watch schedule cycles through watch periods with 5h on, 15h off watch, such that watches occur 4h earlier on the clock each day - that is, the watches rotate backward. The timing of sleep varies over 4-day cycles, and sleep is split on some days to accommodate nighttime watchstanding. The 3/9 watch schedule cycles through watch periods with 3h on, 9h off watch, allowing for consistent sleep timing over days. In some sections of the 3/9 watch schedule, sleep may need to be split to accommodate nighttime watchstanding. In both the 5/15 and 3/9 watch schedules, four watch sections alternate to cover the 24h of the day. Here we compared sleep duration, psychomotor vigilance and subjective sleepiness in simulated sections of the 5/15 and 3/9 watch schedules. Fifteen healthy male subjects spent 6 consecutive days (5 nights) in the laboratory. Sleep opportunities were restricted to an average of 6.5h daily. Actigraphically estimated sleep duration was 5.6h per watch day on average, with no significant difference between watch sections. Sleep duration was not reduced when sleep opportunities were split. Psychomotor vigilance degraded over watch days, and tended to be more variable in the 5/15 than in the 3/9 watch sections. These laboratory-based findings suggest that Navy watch schedules are associated with cumulative sleep loss and a build-up of fatigue across days. The fixed watch periods of the 3/9 watch schedule appear to yield more stable performance than the backward rotating watch periods of the 5/15 watch schedule. Optimal performance may require longer and more consistent daily opportunities for sleep than are typically obtained in Navy operations.

Minimum duration of actigraphy-defined nocturnal awakenings necessary for morning recall.

BACKGROUND: Healthy adults awaken between each sleep cycle approximately 5 times each night but generally do not remember all of these awakenings in the morning. A rule of thumb has arisen in the sleep field that approximately 5 min of continuous wakefulness are required to form a memory for an awakening. However, few studies have examined memory for these sleep-wake transitions and none have done so in the home, while participants follow their normal routine. METHODS: Self-report and actigraphy were used in the participant's home environment to determine the minimum duration of an awakening necessary for morning recall for each of the 39 healthy adults. RESULTS: Recall thresholds ranged from 30 to 600 s with a mean of 259 s (4 min 19 s) and were negatively associated with sleep efficiency but not significantly associated with total sleep time, age, income, or education. There also was a sex by cohabitation interaction, with single men having lower thresholds than single women and cohabiting participants, which was explained by higher sleep efficiency in noncohabitating men. Large individual differences suggest that many factors may influence recall threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary study is the first to calculate the duration of wakefulness necessary for morning recall of nocturnal awakenings and the first to use a field-based design, allowing for the study of habitual sleep patterns at the participant's home. Further study is needed to explore if recall thresholds calculated using actigraphy can be validated against polysomnography (PSG) or be used to guide potential treatments.