Mobile fNIRS for exploring inter-brain synchrony across generations and time

While still relatively rare, longitudinal hyperscanning studies are exceptionally valuable for documenting changes in inter-brain synchrony, which may in turn underpin how behaviors develop and evolve in social settings. The generalizability and ecological validity of this experimental approach hinges on the selected imaging technique being mobile-a requirement met by functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). fNIRS has most frequently been used to examine the development of inter-brain synchrony and behavior in child-parent dyads. In this position paper, we contend that dedicating attention to longitudinal and intergenerational hyperscanning stands to benefit the fields of social and cognitive neuroscience more broadly. We argue that this approach is particularly relevant for understanding the neural mechanisms underpinning intergenerational social dynamics, and potentially for benchmarking progress in psychological and social interventions, many of which are situated in intergenerational contexts. In line with our position, we highlight areas of intergenerational research that stand to be enhanced by longitudinal hyperscanning with mobile devices, describe challenges that may arise from measuring across generations in the real world, and offer potential solutions.

The 3-Minute Psychomotor Vigilance Test Demonstrates Inadequate Convergent Validity Relative to the 10-Minute Psychomotor Vigilance Test Across Sleep Loss and Recovery

The Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT) is a widely used behavioral attention measure, with the 10-min (PVT-10) and 3-min (PVT-3) as two commonly used versions. The PVT-3 may be comparable to the PVT-10, though its convergent validity relative to the PVT-10 has not been explicitly assessed. For the first time, we utilized repeated measures correlation (rmcorr) to evaluate intra-individual associations between PVT-10 and PVT-3 versions across total sleep deprivation (TSD), chronic sleep restriction (SR) and multiple consecutive days of recovery. Eighty-three healthy adults (mean ± SD, 34.7 ± 8.9 years; 36 females) received two baseline nights (B1-B2), five SR nights (SR1-SR5), 36 h TSD, and four recovery nights (R1-R4) between sleep loss conditions. The PVT-10 and PVT-3 were completed every 2 h during wakefulness. Rmcorr compared responses on two frequently used, sensitive PVT metrics: reaction time (RT) via response speed (1/RT) and lapses (RT > 500 ms on the PVT-10 and > 355 ms on the PVT-3) by day (e.g., B2), by study phase (e.g., SR1-SR5), and by time point (1000-2000 h). PVT 1/RT correlations were generally stronger than those for lapses. The majority of correlations (48/50 [96%] for PVT lapses and 38/50 [76%] for PVT 1/RT) were values below 0.70, indicating validity issues. Overall, the PVT-3 demonstrated inadequate convergent validity with the "gold standard" PVT-10 across two different types of sleep loss and across extended recovery. Thus, the PVT-3 is not interchangeable with the PVT-10 for assessing behavioral attention performance during sleep loss based on the design of our study and the metrics we evaluated. Our results have substantial implications for design and measure selection in laboratory and applied settings, including those involving sleep deprivation.

Left Ventricular Ejection Time Measured by Echocardiography Differentiates Neurobehavioral Resilience and Vulnerability to Sleep Loss and Stress

There are substantial individual differences (resilience and vulnerability) in performance resulting from sleep loss and psychosocial stress, but predictive potential biomarkers remain elusive. Similarly, marked changes in the cardiovascular system from sleep loss and stress include an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. It remains unknown whether key hemodynamic markers, including left ventricular ejection time (LVET), stroke volume (SV), heart rate (HR), cardiac index (CI), blood pressure (BP), and systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI), differ in resilient vs. vulnerable individuals and predict differential performance resilience with sleep loss and stress. We investigated for the first time whether the combination of total sleep deprivation (TSD) and psychological stress affected a comprehensive set of hemodynamic measures in healthy adults, and whether these measures differentiated neurobehavioral performance in resilient and vulnerable individuals. Thirty-two healthy adults (ages 27-53; 14 females) participated in a 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. A modified Trier Social Stress Test induced psychological stress during TSD. Cardiovascular measure collection [SV, HR, CI, LVET, BP, and SVRI] and neurobehavioral performance testing (including a behavioral attention task and a rating of subjective sleepiness) occurred at six and 11 timepoints, respectively. Individuals with longer pre-study LVET (determined by a median split on pre-study LVET) tended to have poorer performance during TSD and stress. Resilient and vulnerable groups (determined by a median split on average TSD performance) showed significantly different profiles of SV, HR, CI, and LVET. Importantly, LVET at pre-study, but not other hemodynamic measures, reliably differentiated neurobehavioral performance during TSD and stress, and therefore may be a biomarker. Future studies should investigate whether the non-invasive marker, LVET, determines risk for adverse health outcomes.

Cortisol and C-Reactive Protein Vary During Sleep Loss and Recovery but Are Not Markers of Neurobehavioral Resilience

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.

Concordance of multiple methods to define resiliency and vulnerability to sleep loss depends on Psychomotor Vigilance Test metric

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.

Raw scores on subjective sleepiness, fatigue, and vigor metrics consistently define resilience and vulnerability to sleep loss

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.

Genetic Markers of Differential Vulnerability to Sleep Loss in Adults

In this review, we discuss reports of genotype-dependent interindividual differences in phenotypic neurobehavioral responses to total sleep deprivation or sleep restriction. We highlight the importance of using the candidate gene approach to further elucidate differential resilience and vulnerability to sleep deprivation in humans, although we acknowledge that other omics techniques and genome-wide association studies can also offer insights into biomarkers of such vulnerability. Specifically, we discuss polymorphisms in adenosinergic genes (ADA and ADORA2A), core circadian clock genes (BHLHE41/DEC2 and PER3), genes related to cognitive development and functioning (BDNF and COMT), dopaminergic genes (DRD2 and DAT), and immune and clearance genes (AQP4, DQB1*0602, and TNFα) as potential genetic indicators of differential vulnerability to deficits induced by sleep loss. Additionally, we review the efficacy of several countermeasures for the neurobehavioral impairments induced by sleep loss, including banking sleep, recovery sleep, caffeine, and naps. The discovery of reliable, novel genetic markers of differential vulnerability to sleep loss has critical implications for future research involving predictors, countermeasures, and treatments in the field of sleep and circadian science.

Cognitive throughput and working memory raw scores consistently differentiate resilient and vulnerable groups to sleep loss

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.