SLEEP DEPRIVATION ANALYSIS LABS

Michael Bermejo

City College of New York

English 21007

Ms.Rodwell

March 1, 2022

        The three reports being examined are “Sleep deprivation affects gait control,” (Guilherme S. Umemura et al.), to be referred to as Report 1; “Quantifying Cognitive Impairment after Sleep Deprivation at Different Times of Day: A Proof of Concept using Ultra-Short Smartphone-Based Tests,” (Benjamin C. Holding et al., 2021), to be referred to as Report 2; and “Quantifying sleep architecture dynamics and individual differences using big data and Bayesian networks,” (Benjamin D. Yetton et al., 2018), to be referred to as Report 3. The three lab reports focusing on sleep dynamics and the effects on human function the reports varied in terms of format in structure. Reports 1 and 2 were well-organized and had succinct information for the audience. However, Report 3 failed to incorporate a consistent format.

        Report 1 focused on the effects that sleep deprivation has on gait control. Gait control is better defined as a person’s pattern of walking. The study being performed is whether different restrictions of sleep affect a person’s control of gait. The different restrictions of sleep that the groups of people being experimented where known as acute, chronic, and control. The results should prove that any amount of sleep deprivation will lead to a deficit in motor sense performing, both intellectually and physically.

In Report 2, scientists examine the effects of sleep deprivation and time of day on cognitive function. The method for this experiment was using the Karolina Wake App on 182 participants. The process of this experiment included using a 2-minute smartphone assessment on all cognitive areas. The cognitive test done on the smartphone were specifically made to examine different cognitive functions including memory, problem solving, thinking, etc.

In Report 3 Bayesian network, focuses more on dynamics of sleep and the factors that are apparent between different sleep stages. Through the different influences, such as age, sex, body, mass index, time of day, and sleep. The information gathered was taken from a scale of 3202 nights of a group of normal individuals. The data collected is meant to show the differences in stages of sleep for different categories of individuals. The report states that there are 4 sleep stages known as: Stage 1, Stage 2, the Slow Wave Sleep (SWS) and Rapid Eye Movement (REM). They are classified based on the progression of sleep, for example stage 1 has to do with the beginning with waking up. The prediction of stages was made possible using the Bayesian network model which helped predict the current stage of sleep and what influenced the duration of each stage of sleep.

All lab reports include very specific title names unique to their specific experiment/survey being conducted. For example, report 2 focuses on the effects of sleep deprivation on cognitive impairment.

As for the abstract, Report 1 does not provide an area titled Abstract instead, the entire paragraph is bolded. The paragraph in Report 1 is straight to the point and concise as well. It includes the results, hypothesis, and part of the procedure in a paragraph. Report 2, like report 1, includes information of the whole report such as the methods, participants, and results. Report 2 provides a deeper description on the overall experiment. For example, including information on the procedure as well as the number of participants and the instruments being used to evaluate the recordings.  As opposed to the other reports, Report 3 provides too much information that can be challenging to interpret at the beginning of the lab report. For example, a sentence used in the abstract is “Here we quantify the impact of individual differences on the dynamics of sleep architecture and determine which factors or set of factors best predict the next sleep stage from current stage information.” (Benjamin D. Yetton et al., 2018) This sentence is too vague and confusing to be in the abstract. The stages of sleep should be included in the abstract since the entire report revolves around identifying factors that affect each stage of sleep.

An introduction should inform the audience with enough background knowledge for the audience to have an idea of what will be examined. The introduction of Report 1 provides some background knowledge on sleep deprivation and gives the audience a deeper understanding to the areas that sleep deprivation has. The information given can be useful to the audience which are not completely aware of all the information related to the effects between sleep and gait control. For example, “Sleep deprivation is related to lower activity in the prefrontal cortex, thalamus, basal ganglia, and cerebellum.” (Guilherme S. Umemura et al.) This provides sufficient background to further understand the purpose of Report 1 and its relation to sleep deprivation affecting gait control. Report 2 also provides background on sleep and introduces the stages of sleep that were not discussed in the abstract. Report 3 has information of previous finding that relate to the experiment being done. By providing more information on previous findings, the scientist gives the audience an idea of what to expect. This introduction also includes a hypothesis and purpose of the lab to end the introduction. Overall, the introductions were specific to the topic and introducing proper background related to the experiment.

The methods section for Report 1 is split into different subtopics whereas Report 3 does not include the methods section where it generally belongs. The method section of Report 1 is split up into different sub-topics which is clear to the reader. The topics included within the method section are participants, study design, assessments, and instruments. Having these sections split up makes it easier to understand the method part of the report. Report 3 does not have the methods section where it usually belongs, which is after the introduction. In Report 3, the method is included after the results. This is difficult to understand because the results are explained first and then the method used to obtain the results is explained after. There is also no clarification of what materials are being used. Report 2 and Report 1 include the method section before the results section. There is also step by step procedures in these reports as well as explanation to each of the steps. Report 2 states, “One-hundred and eighty-two healthy individuals (age range 18–45, 103 women) participated in this randomized between- subjects design experiment.” (Benjamin C. Holding et al., 2021) These statistics can help with the understanding of the results. Whereas Report 3, includes the materials and methods toward the end of the report.

The procedures can be typically found within its own section however, the results of Report 3 are formatted in a way that it includes the procedure and the results all in one. As opposed to having the procedures of the experiment in the methods section after the introduction. For example, “We began with sleep efficiency, which was best predicted with age but not sex…” (Benjamin D. Yetton et al., 2018) and “We then modeled how the minutes in each stage changed as a function of sex and age. For WASO, a model with age…” (Benjamin D. Yetton et al., 2018) These two examples demonstrate how the procedure is included in the results which can make it difficult to understand everything at once. The discussion section of report 3 is split into different section to show limitation in this report as well as further direction when attempting to try this experiment again. This can help with the development on the study of the transition of sleep stages. The results in Report 1 consist of mostly table and graphs with minimum explanation. The results are raw calculation of the data gathered and displayed in graphs and tables. Report 1 divides the different results into different subtopics so that the different results for a specific topic being experimented can be looked over individually. In the discussion portion of Report 1, the scientists discuss the relation of this experiment and previous experiments they must done to find similarities and differences. Connecting previous experiment can help with building upon their findings.

Report 1 provides a well-organized and listed overall results of the experiment as well as the meaning behind it. For example, in Report 1 it states, “The results showed: (1) subliminal rhythmic compensation in gait is affected by sleep restriction and (2) sleep compensation results in a better motor performance.” (Guilherme S. Umemura et al.) The conclusion is straight forward in Report 1. The conclusion of Report 3 is straight forward because it includes a summary of the results and its connection to the bigger picture. Regarding Report 2, it does not provide a labeled conclusion section but ends it with the discussion section. The discussion section is enough to leave the audience with extra thoughts but does not briefly summarize the results and experiments.

Overall, Reports 1 and 2 include sufficient information in each section of the labs. On the contrary Report 3 has left out important components such as the formatting, and the function of each section.

References

Holding, B. C., Ingre, M., Petrovic, P., Sundelin, T., & Axelsson, J. (2021, April 13). Quantifying cognitive impairment after sleep deprivation at different times of day: A proof of concept using ultra-short smartphone-based tests. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience. Retrieved March 2, 2022, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8076531/

Umemura, G. S., Pinho, J. P., Duysens, J., Krebs, H. I., & Forner-Cordero, A. (n.d.). Sleep deprivation affects gait control. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-00705-9.pdf. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-00705-9.pdf

Yetton, B. D., McDevitt, E. A., Cellini, N., Shelton, C., & Mednick, S. C. (2018, April 11). Quantifying sleep architecture dynamics and individual differences using big data and Bayesian Networks. PLOS ONE. Retrieved March 2, 2022, from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0194604