↓ Skip to main content

More Severe Insomnia Complaints in People with Stronger Long-Range Temporal Correlations in Wake Resting-State EEG

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
60 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.
Title
More Severe Insomnia Complaints in People with Stronger Long-Range Temporal Correlations in Wake Resting-State EEG
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2016.00576
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michele A. Colombo, Yishul Wei, Jennifer R. Ramautar, Klaus Linkenkaer-Hansen, Enzo Tagliazucchi, Eus J. W. Van Someren

Abstract

The complaints of people suffering from Insomnia Disorder (ID) concern both sleep and daytime functioning. However, little is known about wake brain temporal dynamics in people with ID. We therefore assessed possible alterations in Long-Range Temporal Correlations (LRTC) in the amplitude fluctuations of band-filtered oscillations in electroencephalography (EEG) recordings. We investigated whether LRTC differ between cases with ID and matched controls. Within both groups, we moreover investigated whether individual differences in subjective insomnia complaints are associated with LRTC. Resting-state high-density EEG (256-channel) was recorded in 52 participants with ID and 43 age- and sex-matched controls, during Eyes Open (EO) and Eyes Closed (EC). Detrended fluctuation analysis was applied to the amplitude envelope of band-filtered EEG oscillations (theta, alpha, sigma, beta-1, beta-2) to obtain the Hurst exponents (H), as measures of LRTC. Participants rated their subjective insomnia complaints using the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Through general linear models, we evaluated whether H, aggregated across electrodes and frequencies, differed between cases and controls, or showed within-group associations with individual differences in ISI. Additionally, we characterized the spatio-spectral profiles of group differences and associations using non-parametric statistics. H did not differ between cases with ID and controls in any of the frequency bands, neither during EO nor EC. During EO, however, within-group associations between H and ISI indicated that individuals who experienced worse sleep quality had stronger LRTC. Spatio-spectral profiles indicated that the associations held most prominently for the amplitude fluctuations of parietal theta oscillations within the ID group, and of centro-frontal beta-1 oscillations in controls. While people suffering from insomnia experience substantially worse sleep quality than controls, their brain dynamics express similar strength of LRTC. In each group, however, individuals experiencing worse sleep quality tend to have stronger LRTC during eyes open wakefulness, in a spatio-spectral range specific for each group. Taken together, the findings indicate that subjective insomnia complaints involve distinct dynamical processes in people with ID and controls. The findings are in agreement with recent reports on decreasing LRTC with sleep depth, and with the hypothesis that sleep balances brain excitability.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 16 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 15 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 17%
Psychology 9 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 16 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 November 2016.
All research outputs
#19,017,658
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#8,541
of 14,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#308,595
of 420,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#140
of 220 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,285 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 420,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 220 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.