Slow waves (SWs, 0.5-4 Hz) in field potentials during sleep reflect synchronized alternations between bursts of action potentials and periods of membrane hyperpolarization of cortical neurons. SWs decline during sleep and this is thought to be related to a reduction of synaptic strength in cortical networks and be central to sleep's role in maintaining brain function. A central assumption in current concepts of sleep function is that SWs during sleep, and associated recovery processes, are independent of circadian rhythmicity. We tested this hypothesis by quantifying all SWs from 12 EEG derivations in 34 participants in whom 230 sleep periods were scheduled across the circadian cycle in a 10-day forced-desynchrony protocol which allowed estimation of the separate circadian and sleep-dependent modulation of SWs. Circadian rhythmicity significantly modulated the incidence, amplitude, frequency and the slope of the SWs such that the peaks of the circadian rhythms in these slow-wave parameters were located during the biological day. Topographical analyses demonstrated that the sleep-dependent modulation of SW characteristics was most prominent in frontal brain areas whereas the circadian effect was similar to or greater than the sleep-dependent modulation over the central and posterior brain regions. The data demonstrate that circadian rhythmicity directly modulates characteristics of SWs thought to be related to synaptic plasticity and that this modulation depends on topography. These findings have implications for the understanding of local sleep regulation and conditions such as ageing, depression, and neurodegeneration which are associated with changes in SWs, neural plasticity and circadian rhythmicity.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2015.
All research outputs
#17,549,885
of 27,809,264 outputs
Outputs from NeuroImage
#9,062
of 12,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,976
of 282,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NeuroImage
#136
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,809,264 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,530 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,379 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
