In recent decades, emotion regulation (ER) has been one of the most widely studied constructs within the psychological field. Nevertheless, laboratory experiments and retrospective assessments have been the two most common strands of ER research, thus leaving open several crucial questions about ER antecedents and consequences in daily life. Beyond traditional methods, ecological momentary assessment (EMA) has the potential to capture ER dynamics during the flow of daily experiences, in real-life settings and through repeated measurements. Here, we discuss what we currently know about ER antecedents and consequences. We will compare findings from previous literature to findings from EMA studies, pointing out both similarities and differences, as well as questions that can be answered better with the EMA approach.
SUMMAR Y Gaboxadol is a selective extrasynaptic GABA A receptor agonist previously in development for the treatment of insomnia. Due to its short half-life (1.5-2 h) it is expected to be free from residual effects the next morning. The present study assessed the residual effects of evening and middle-of-the-night administration of 15 mg of gaboxadol on cognitive, psychomotor and driving performance. Twenty-eight healthy volunteers entered the study with 25 (12 women; mean age 31.4 years) completing a double-blind, placebo-controlled, active-referenced five-way cross-over study. Each treatment night subjects ingested one capsule at 23:00 hours and one at 04:00 hours.Treatments were placebo at both times, 15 mg gaboxadol or 7.5 mg zopiclone followed by placebo, and placebo followed by 15 mg gaboxadol or 10 mg zolpidem. Effects on cognition and psychomotor performance were assessed between 07:30 and 08:30 hours and on driving between 09:00 and 10:00 hours. Driving, as measured by standard deviation of lateral position in an on-the-road driving test, was almost significantly (P < 0.07) impaired after evening administration of gaboxadol for the all-subjectscompleted set (n = 25) but significantly (P < 0.05) in the full analysis set (n = 28). Effects of all other active treatments on driving were significant. Evening administration of gaboxadol had minor effects on divided attention only, whereas middle-of-the-night administration impaired performance significantly in all tests except memory. Zolpidem and zopiclone impaired performance significantly in every test except tracking after zopiclone; 15 mg of gaboxadol can produce minor residual effects on driving after evening administration. Administration later at night is associated with moderately impairing residual effects on driving and psychomotor performance but not on memory.k e y w o r d s gaboxadol, hypnotics, on-the-road driving, residual effects, zolpidem, zopiclone
RationaleResidual effects of hypnotics on driving performance have been mainly determined in studies using a standardized driving test with healthy good sleepers. Responses to effects may differ, however, between insomniacs and healthy volunteers due to the underlying sleep disorder. In addition, a majority of insomniacs uses hypnotics chronically resulting in the development of tolerance to impairing effects. Impaired driving performance in healthy volunteers may then be an overestimation of the actual effects in insomniacs.ObjectivesThe present study aims to compare the residual effects of zopiclone 7.5 mg on on-the-road driving performance of 16 middle-aged insomniacs chronically using hypnotics (chronic users), 16 middle-aged insomniacs not or infrequently using hypnotics (infrequent users), and 16 healthy, age matched, good sleepers (controls).MethodsThe study was conducted according to a 3 × 2 double-blind, placebo controlled crossover design, with three groups and two treatment conditions. Treatments were single oral doses of zopiclone 7.5 mg and placebo administered at bedtime (2330 hours). Between 10 and 11 h after administration subjects performed a standardized highway driving test.ResultsZopiclone 7.5 mg significantly impaired on-the-road driving performance in both insomnia groups and healthy controls. The magnitude of impairment was significantly less in the chronic users group as compared with the controls.ConclusionsThe smaller magnitude of effects suggests that investigating residual effects of hypnotics in healthy volunteers may yield a minor overestimation of the actual effects in insomnia patients.
RationaleMany older adults report sleep problems and use of hypnotics. Several studies have shown that hypnotics can have acute adverse effects on driving the next morning. It is unclear however whether driving of chronic hypnotic users is impaired. Therapeutic effects on insomnia and development of tolerance may reduce the residual effects on driving.ObjectivesThe present study aimed to compare actual driving performance and driving-related skills of chronic hypnotic users to good sleepers. To determine whether insomnia itself affects driving performance, driving and driving-related skills were compared between insomnia patients who do not or infrequently use hypnotics and good sleepers.MethodsTwenty-two frequent users of hypnotics (using hypnotics ≥4 nights per week for more than 3 months), 20 infrequent users (using hypnotics ≤3 nights per week), and 21 healthy, age-matched controls participated in this study. On the night before testing, all subjects were hospitalized for an 8-h sleep recorded by polysomnography. Frequent hypnotic users used their regular medication at bedtime (2330 hours), while infrequent users and controls received no medication. Cognitive performance (word learning, digit span, tracking, divided attention, vigilance, and inhibitory control) was assessed 8.5 h and driving performance between 10 and 11 h after bedtime and dosing.ResultsPolysomnographic recordings did not significantly differ between the groups, but the insomnia patients, treated or untreated, still reported subjective sleep complaints. Results show no differences in driving performance and driving-related skills between both groups of insomnia patients and controls.ConclusionsDriving performance in chronic users of hypnotics and untreated insomnia patients is not impaired. For chronic users, this may be due to prescription of relatively safe drugs and low doses. For untreated insomniacs, this corroborates previous findings showing an absence of neuropsychological deficits in this group of patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.