The amount and timing of sleep and sleep architecture (sleep stages) are determined by several factors, important among which are the environment, circadian rhythms and time awake. Separating the roles played by these factors requires specific protocols, including the constant routine and altered sleep-wake schedules. Results from such protocols have led to the discovery of the factors that determine the amounts and distribution of slow wave and rapid eye movement sleep as well as to the development of models to determine the amount and timing of sleep. One successful model postulates two processes. The first is process S, which is due to sleep pressure (and increases with time awake) and is attributed to a 'sleep homeostat'. Process S reverses during slow wave sleep (when it is called process S'). The second is process C, which shows a daily rhythm that is parallel to the rhythm of core temperature. Processes S and C combine approximately additively to determine the times of sleep onset and waking. The model has proved useful in describing normal sleep in adults. Current work aims to identify the detailed nature of processes S and C. The model can also be applied to circumstances when the sleep-wake cycle is different from the norm in some way. These circumstances include: those who are poor sleepers or short sleepers; the role an individual's chronotype (a measure of how the timing of the individual's preferred sleep-wake cycle compares with the average for a population); and changes in the sleep-wake cycle with age, particularly in adolescence and aging, since individuals tend to prefer to go to sleep later during adolescence and earlier in old age. In all circumstances, the evidence that sleep times and architecture are altered and the possible causes of these changes (including altered S, S' and C processes) are examined.

BackgroundThe purpose of the present study is to investigate effects of tryptophan intake and light exposure on melatonin secretion and sleep by modifying tryptophan ingestion at breakfast and light exposure during the daytime, and measuring sleep quality (by using actigraphy and the OSA sleep inventory) and melatonin secretion at night.MethodsThirty three male University students (mean ± SD age: 22 ± 3.1 years) completed the experiments lasting 5 days and 4 nights. The subjects were randomly divided into four groups: Poor*Dim (n = 10), meaning a tryptophan-poor breakfast (55 mg/meal) in the morning and dim light environment (<50 lx) during the daytime; Rich*Dim (n = 7), tryptophan-rich breakfast (476 mg/meal) and dim light environment; Poor*Bright (n = 9), tryptophan-poor breakfast and bright light environment (>5,000 lx); and Rich*Bright (n = 7), tryptophan-rich breakfast and bright light.ResultsSaliva melatonin concentrations on the fourth day were significantly lower than on the first day in the Poor*Dim group, whereas they were higher on the fourth day in the Rich*Bright group. Creatinine-adjusted melatonin in urine showed the same direction as saliva melatonin concentrations. These results indicate that the combination of a tryptophan-rich breakfast and bright light exposure during the daytime could promote melatonin secretion at night; further, the observations that the Rich*Bright group had higher melatonin concentrations than the Rich*Dim group, despite no significant differences being observed between the Poor*Dim and Rich*Dim groups nor the Poor*Bright and Rich*Bright groups, suggest that bright light exposure in the daytime is an important contributor to raised melatonin levels in the evening.ConclusionsThis study is the first to report the quantitative effects of changed tryptophan intake at breakfast combined with daytime light exposure on melatonin secretion and sleep quality. Evening saliva melatonin secretion changed significantly and indicated that a tryptophan-rich breakfast and bright light exposure during the daytime promoted melatonin secretion at this time.

PurposeTo record electroretinograms (ERGs) from intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) of glaucoma patients.MethodsERGs were recorded in 10 normal subjects and 15 patients with glaucoma. The ERG illumination system was built to achieve receptor-silent substitution, and comprised an optical diffuser and four-in-one light-emitting diodes.ResultsThe ERG recordings of ipRGC from normal subjects showed an “on” response and an “off” response. The mean (±SD) implicit time for the on and off responses in normal subjects was 103.0 ± 24.9 and 337.9 ± 45.8 ms, respectively, with corresponding amplitudes of 7.7 ± 2.8 and 7.3 ± 3.4 μV, respectively. In glaucoma patients, the implicit time of the on and off responses was 135.0 ± 28.9 and 368.2 ± 17.3 ms, respectively. The corresponding amplitudes of the on and off responses in these patients were 0.47 ± 0.18 and 0.66 ± 0.32 μV, respectively.ConclusionsThe results demonstrate successful ERG recording of ipRGCs from advanced glaucoma patients, with marked reductions in amplitude, although not implicit time, compared with normal subjects.

No abstract

BackgroundThe discovery of the novel photoreceptor, melanopsin-expressing retinal ganglion cells (mRGCs), has raised researchers’ interest in photoreceptive tasks performed by the mRGC, especially in non-image-forming visual functions. In a prior study, we investigated the mRGC response to light stimuli independent of rods and cones with the four-primary illumination system, which modulates stimulus levels to the mRGC and cones independently, and mRGC baseline responses were recorded in the electroretinogram (ERG).MethodsIn the present study, we used the same illumination system to compare independent responses of the mRGC and cones in five subjects (mean ± SD age, 23.0 ± 1.7 years). The ERG waveforms were examined as direct measurements of responses of the mRGCs and cones to stimulation (250 msec). Implicit times (the time taken to peaks) and peak values from 30 stimuli given to each subject were analyzed.ResultsTwo distinct positive peaks appeared in the mRGC response, approximately 80 msec after the onset of the stimuli and 30 msec after their offset, while no such peaks appeared in the cone response. The response to the mRGC stimulus was significantly higher than that to the cone stimulus at approximately 80 msec (P < 0.05) and tended to be higher than the cone stimulus at approximately 280 msec (P = 0.08).ConclusionsImplicit time of the first peak was much longer than that to the b-wave and this delay might reflect mRGC’s sluggish responses. This is the first report of amplitudes and implicit time in the ERG from the response of the mRGC that is independent of rods and cones, and obtained using the four-primary illumination system.