ArticleSleep2021
Cognitive throughput and working memory raw scores consistently differentiate resilient and vulnerable groups to sleep loss.
Article in Sleep, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of Sleep Loss on Retrospective Metacognitive Judgements Across Five Cognitive Tests.Journal of sleep research · 2026Trial
- Functional brain network stability reflects individual resilience during sleep deprivation.Sleep · 2026Article
- Bidirectional Predictors Between Neurobehavioural Measures During Total Sleep Deprivation and Baseline and Recovery Sleep Measures.Journal of sleep research · 2025Article
- Individualized rTMS Intervention Targeting Sleep Deprivation-Induced Vigilance Decline: Task fMRI-Guided Approach.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2024Article
- Short-term and long-term phenotypic stability of actigraphic sleep metrics involving repeated sleep loss and recovery.Journal of sleep research · 2024Article
- Bright Light Therapy for Major Depressive Disorder in Adolescent Outpatients: A Preliminary Study.Clocks & sleep · 2024Article
- Enhanced amygdala-cingulate connectivity associates with better mood in both healthy and depressive individuals after sleep deprivation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Cardiovascular measures display robust phenotypic stability across long-duration intervals involving repeated sleep deprivation and recovery.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Concurrent behavioral and electrophysiological longitudinal recordings forFrontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022Article
- Trait Anxiety Does Not Predict the Anxiogenic Response to Sleep Deprivation.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
- The 3-Minute Psychomotor Vigilance Test Demonstrates Inadequate Convergent Validity Relative to the 10-Minute Psychomotor Vigilance Test Across Sleep Loss and Recovery.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Review
- Cortisol and C-Reactive Protein Vary During Sleep Loss and Recovery but Are Not Markers of Neurobehavioral Resilience.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- Left Ventricular Ejection Time Measured by Echocardiography Differentiates Neurobehavioral Resilience and Vulnerability to Sleep Loss and Stress.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
objectivesSubstantial 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.
methodsForty-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. .
resultsThe 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.
conclusionVarious 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.