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 83 adults received two baseline nights (10-12h time-in-bed, TIB) followed by five 4h TIB SR nights or 36h TSD, and four recovery nights (R1-R4; 12h TIB). Neurobehavioral tests were completed every 2h 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 sleep. Conclusion 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 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.

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 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. Conclusion 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.

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 41 adults participated in a 13-day laboratory study consisting of 2 baseline, 5 SR, 4 recovery, and one 36h TSD night. The PVT was administered every 2h 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.

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 41 adults participated in a 13-day experiment: 2 baseline, 5 SR, 4 recovery, and one 36h TSD night. The Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) and Digit Span Test (DS) were administered every 2h. 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.

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.