2B-Alert Web 2.0, an Open-Access Tool for Predicting Alertness and Optimizing the Benefits of Caffeine: Utility Study

When to sleep and consume caffeine to boost alertness

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Sleep loss can cause cognitive impairments that increase the risk of mistakes and accidents. However, existing guidelines to counteract the effects of sleep loss are generic and are not designed to address individual-specific conditions, leading to sub-optimal alertness levels. Here, we developed an optimization algorithm that automatically identifies sleep schedules and caffeine-dosing strategies to minimize alertness impairment due to sleep loss for desired times of the day.

METHODS

We combined our previous algorithms that separately optimize sleep or caffeine to simultaneously identify the best sleep schedules and caffeine doses that minimize alertness impairment at desired times. The optimization algorithm uses the predictions of the well-validated Unified Model of Performance to estimate the effectiveness and physiological feasibility of a large number of possible solutions and identify the best one. To assess the optimization algorithm, we used it to identify the best sleep schedules and caffeine-dosing strategies for four studies that exemplify common sleep-loss conditions and compared the predicted alertness-impairment reduction achieved by using the algorithm's recommendations against that achieved by following the U.S. Army caffeine guidelines.

RESULTS

Compared to the alertness-impairment levels in the original studies, the algorithm's recommendations reduced alertness impairment on average by 63%, an improvement of 24 percentage points over the U.S. Army caffeine guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide an optimization algorithm that simultaneously identifies effective and safe sleep schedules and caffeine-dosing strategies to minimize alertness impairment at user-specified times.

Dawn of a New Dawn: Advances in Sleep Health to Optimize Performance

Optimal sleep health is a critical component to high-level performance. In populations such as the military, public service (eg, firefighters), and health care, achieving optimal sleep health is difficult and subsequently deficiencies in sleep health may lead to performance decrements. However, advances in sleep monitoring technologies and mitigation strategies for poor sleep health show promise for further ecological scientific investigation within these populations. The current review briefly outlines the relationship between sleep health and performance as well as current advances in behavioral and technological approaches to improving sleep health for performance.

Assessment of the unified model of performance: accuracy of group-average and individualised alertness predictions

To be effective as a key component of fatigue-management systems, biomathematical models that predict alertness impairment as a function of time of day, sleep history, and caffeine consumption must demonstrate the ability to make accurate predictions across a range of sleep-loss and caffeine schedules. Here, we assessed the ability of the previously reported unified model of performance (UMP) to predict alertness impairment at the group-average and individualised levels in a comprehensive set of 12 studies, including 22 sleep and caffeine conditions, for a total of 301 unique subjects. Given sleep and caffeine schedules, the UMP predicted alertness impairment based on the psychomotor vigilance test (PVT) for the duration of the schedule. To quantify prediction performance, we computed the root mean square error (RMSE) between model predictions and PVT data, and the fraction of measured PVTs that fell within the models' prediction intervals (PIs). For the group-average model predictions, the overall RMSE was 43 ms (range 15-74 ms) and the fraction of PVTs within the PIs was 80% (range 41%-100%). At the individualised level, the UMP could predict alertness for 81% of the subjects, with an overall average RMSE of 64 ms (range 32-147 ms) and fraction of PVTs within the PIs conservatively estimated as 71% (range 41%-100%). Altogether, these results suggest that, for the group-average model and 81% of the individualised models, in three out of four PVT measurements we cannot distinguish between study data and model predictions.