Search

We read with interest the commentary by Skeldon and Dijk about our article "Weekly, seasonal and chronotype-dependent variation of dim light melatonin onset." The discussion points raised by Skeldon and Dijk are currently among the most hotly debated in human circadian science. What external factors determine human phase of entrainment? How great is the contribution of natural versus artificial light and sun time versus social time? Our intra-individual data add to the still limited evidence from field studies in this matter. In their commentary, Skeldon and Dijk formulate two either-or hypotheses, postulating that humans entrain either solely to the natural light-dark cycle (sun time referenced by midday) (H1 ) or solely to the light selected by local clock time and social constraints (H2 ). Neither hypothesis accounts for the effect of season on human light exposure. We interpreted our findings along more complex lines, speculating that the 1-h earlier melatonin rise in summer found in our sample is likely the combined result of daylight saving time (DST)-induced behavioral advances and a stronger natural zeitgeber in summer (light exposure determined by social and seasonal factors, Horiginal ). Here, we show how the criticism by Skeldon and Dijk is based on two sentences quoted out of context (misrepresenting our hypothesis as H1 ) and that their hypothesis H2 leaves out important seasonal components in light exposure.

A growing body of literature has linked chronotype and sleep to school performance. Chronotype is under the control of the circadian clock and refers to sleep timing and diurnal preferences. Chronotype changes with age and is latest during adolescence, giving rise to a mismatch between the (late) circadian clock and the (early) school clock. In general, evening (late) chronotypes obtain lower grades. School performance is influenced by many other factors, such as motivation, intelligence, and conscientiousness. Some of these factors also relate to chronotype. The present paper reviews the literature on the relationship between chronotype and school performance, with the aim of suggesting hypotheses about the mechanisms behind this complex phenomenon and exploring solutions for an optimized school system. Based on the literature reviewed, we hypothesize that chronotype has both a direct and an indirect effect on school performance. The indirect effect is mediated by factors such as conscientiousness, learning/achieving motivation, mood, and alertness. In addition, time of day of testing plays an important role since the chronotype effect on grades is strongest in the morning and disappears in the afternoon. Strategies to decrease the mismatch between the adolescent circadian clock and the school clock could involve light interventions to advance the students' sleep timing, delays in school starting times, and rearrangements of test schedules (tests later in the day).