目的:尽管对睡眠限制(SR)和总睡眠剥夺(TSD)的主观反应存在类似特质的个体差异,可靠的表征仍然难以捉摸。我们通过主观指标全面比较了定义弹性和脆弱性的多种方法。
方法:41名成年人参加了为期13天的实验:2个基线,5SR,4恢复,和一个36小时的TSD之夜。每2小时给予卡罗林斯卡嗜睡量表(KSS)和情绪状态疲劳(POMS-F)和活力(POMS-V)。三种方法(原始分数[平均SR分数],从基线的变化[平均SR减去平均基线分数],和方差[个体SR分数方差]),和六个阈值(±1个标准偏差,得分最高/最低的12.5%,20%,25%,33%,50%)归类为弹性/弱势群体。Kendall的tau-b相关性比较了KSS内部和之间的组分类一致性,POMS-F,和POMS-V评分。偏倚校正和加速自举t检验比较了组得分。
结果:在POMS-F的所有阈值下,所有方法之间都存在显着相关性,在KSS的原始分数和基线方法的变化之间,以及POMS-V的原始得分和方差方法之间通过原始评分方法定义的所有弹性组在整个研究中都有明显更好的分数,特别是在基线和恢复期间,而其他两种方法在措施上有所不同,阈值,或白天。测量之间的相关性在强度上有所不同,方法,或阈值。
结论:只有原始评分方法在基线时始终区分弹性/脆弱群体,在睡眠不足期间,在恢复期间,我们推荐这种方法作为主观弹性/脆弱性分类的有效方法。所有方法都为疲劳创建了可比的分类,有些人的嗜睡程度相当,没有一个在活力方面是可比的。疲劳和活力与困倦相似,但彼此之间却没有。
OBJECTIVE: 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: 41 adults participated in a 13-day experiment:2 baseline, 5 SR, 4 recovery, and one 36h TSD night. The Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS) and the Profile of Mood States Fatigue (POMS-F) and Vigor (POMS-V) were administered every 2h. 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%, 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.