↓ Skip to main content

Functional decoupling of melatonin suppression and circadian phase resetting in humans

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Physiology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 12,259)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
132 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
18 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
3 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Functional decoupling of melatonin suppression and circadian phase resetting in humans
Published in
Journal of Physiology, April 2018
DOI 10.1113/jp275501
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

There is assumed to be a monotonic association between melatonin suppression and circadian phase resetting induced by light exposure. We tested the association between melatonin suppression and phase resetting in humans. Sixteen young healthy participants received nocturnal bright light (∼9500 lux) exposure of continuous or intermittent patterns, and different durations ranging from 12 min to 6.5 h. Intermittent exposure patterns showed significant phase shifts with disproportionately less melatonin suppression. Each and every bright light stimulus in an intermittent exposure pattern induced a similar degree of melatonin suppression, but did not appear to cause an equal magnitude of phase shift. These results suggest that phase shifts and melatonin suppression are functionally independent such that one cannot be used as a proxy measure of the other. Continuous experimental light exposures show that, in general, the conditions that produce greater melatonin suppression also produce greater phase shift, leading to the assumption that one can be used as a proxy for the other. We tested this association in 16 healthy individuals who participated in a 9-day inpatient protocol by assessing melatonin suppression and phase resetting in response to a nocturnal light exposure (LE) of different patterns: (i) dim-light control (<3 lux; n = 6) or (ii) two 12-min intermittent bright light pulses (IBL) separated by 36 min of darkness (∼9500 lux; n = 10). We compared these results with historical data from additional LE patterns: (i) dim-light control (<3 lux; n = 11); (ii) single continuous bright light exposure of 12 min (n = 9), 1.0 h (n = 10) or 6.5 h (n = 6); or (iii) an IBL light pattern consisting of six 15-min pulses with 1.0 h dim-light recovery intervals between them during a total of 6.5 h (n = 7). All light exposure groups had significantly greater phase-delay shifts than the dim-light control condition (P < 0.0001). While a monotonic association between melatonin suppression and circadian phase shift was observed, intermittent exposure patterns showed significant phase shifts with disproportionately less melatonin suppression. Each and every IBL stimulus induced a similar degree of melatonin suppression, but did not appear to cause an equal magnitude of phase shift. These results suggest unique specificities in how light-induced phase shifts and melatonin suppression are mediated such that one cannot be used as a proxy measure of the other.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Other 11 10%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Master 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 40 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 11 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 8%
Psychology 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Engineering 5 4%
Other 32 29%
Unknown 43 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1019. 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 07 March 2026.
All research outputs
#19,728
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Physiology
#8
of 12,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#323
of 370,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Physiology
#2
of 148 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,259 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 370,943 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 148 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.