Investigation of the effectiveness of a split sleep schedule in sustaining sleep and maintaining performance

Sep 16, 2014Chronobiology international

How splitting sleep affects staying rested and keeping performance

AI simplified

Circadian Biology on OpenScience ↗PubMed ↗DOI ↗

Abstract

Participants in the nighttime sleep condition averaged 8.4 hours of sleep per day, significantly more than those in the split and daytime sleep conditions.

A split sleep schedule provided 7.16 hours of sleep, while a daytime schedule resulted in only 6.4 hours.
Subjective sleepiness was highest in the daytime sleep condition and lowest in the nighttime sleep condition.
No significant differences in performance were noted between the different sleep conditions.
Daytime sleep placement led to reduced total sleep time and increased sleepiness compared to nighttime and split sleep.
Further investigation in real-world scenarios is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of split sleep schedules on safety and productivity.

AI simplified

Shift work is common in today's society, and is associated with negative health outcomes, and accidents and incidents. These detrimental effects can be primarily attributed to sleeping and working at an adverse circadian time. The aim of this study was to examine whether a split sleep schedule is as effective as a consolidated day shift or night shift schedule for maintaining performance and sustaining sleep. Fifty-three healthy male volunteers (mean ± SD age = 26.51 ± 4.07 years) underwent a randomized three condition study design. A split sleep condition involving two 5-h sleeping opportunities in 24 h [time in bed (TIB) 0300 h-0800 h and 1500 h-2000 h] was compared to a 10-h consolidated nighttime sleep (TIB 2200 h-0800 h) and 10-h consolidated daytime sleep (TIB 1000 h-2000 h). All participants underwent a baseline period of 10 h of nocturnal time in bed (TIB) followed by a 5-d simulated workweek spent in one of the three conditions. Polysomnography, psychomotor vigilance task, digit-symbol substitution task and subjective state were assessed. During the 5-d simulated workweek, participants in the nighttime sleep condition slept the most (total sleep time per day (TST) 8.4 h ± 13.4 min), followed by the split sleep condition (TST 7.16 h ± 14.2 min) and the daytime sleep condition (TST 6.4 h ± 15.3 min). Subjective sleepiness was highest in the daytime sleep condition and lowest in the nighttime sleep condition. No significant differences in performance were observed between the conditions. Compared to a nighttime consolidated sleep opportunity or split sleep, placement of a consolidated sleep opportunity during the day yielded truncated sleep and increased sleepiness. Further research in real-world situations is warranted to fully assess the efficacy of alternative split sleep schedules for improving safety and productivity.

Full Text

Full text is available at the source.

View full text ↗

Investigation of the effectiveness of a split sleep schedule in sustaining sleep and maintaining performance

Abstract

Full Text

You found one interesting study. We’ll send the next 7.

what lands in your inbox each week:

Recent issues from the circadian biology brief

Abstract

Full Text

Related papers

You found one interesting study. We’ll send the next 7.

what lands in your inbox each week:

Recent issues from the circadian biology brief