Search

Study Objectives: The study compared adaptation responses and sleep pattern differences shown by normal sleepers and insomnia sufferers during lab (LPSG) and home (HPSG) polysomnography. Design: A counter-balanc ed, matched-group design was used. Participants underwent 3 consecutive nocturnal LPSG’s and 3 consecutive nocturnal PSG’s in their homes (HPSG’s). Setting: The sleep disorders laboratories at affiliated VA and university medical centers. Participants: Thirty-five (18 women) middle-aged (40 to 59 years) noncomplaining normal sleepers and an age-matched sample of 33 (17 women) individuals who met structured interview criteria for persistent primary insomnia were the study participants. Measurements and Results: A series of multivariate and univariate analyses were conducted with 9 common sleep parameters to address study objectives. Bed partner influences were controlled by conducting separate sets of analyses for those with and without routine home bed partners. The interaction of participant type (normal vs. insomnia), sleep setting, and PSG sequence (HPSG 1st vs. LPSG 1st) affected first night values of sleep efficiency and stage 2 sleep among those without routine bed partners, and REM latency and sleep efficiency among those with routine bed partners. Analyses which controlled for first night and sequencing effects showed a significant participant type x sleep setting interaction among those with bed partners. These latter analyses suggested that LPSG’s may underestimate the home sleep time of insomnia sufferers and overestimate the sleep continuity of normal sleepers, at least among those who routinely sleep with a bed partner. Conclusions: The nocturnal recording site may influence adaptation effects and sleep pattern differences noted between insomnia sufferers and normal sleepers.

Many studies have shown only modest differences between insomnia sufferers and matched, non-complaining normal controls in regard to their levels of daytime sleepiness and diurnal performances. The current study was conducted to determine whether such daytime comparisons might be affected by the setting (home vs. sleep lab) in which study participants sleep on the nights before such testing. The study used a counter-balanced, matched-group design in which participants underwent three consecutive nocturnal polysomnographs (PSG) conducted either in the sleep lab or in their homes prior to undergoing daytime multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) and computer-administered performance testing. The study participants were 35 (18 women and 17 men) middle-aged (40-59 years) non-complaining normal sleepers and 33 middle-aged insomnia sufferers (17 women and 16 men) who met structured interview criteria for persistent primary insomnia. Use of a hierarchical linear statistical model showed only insomnia sufferers who underwent nocturnal home PSG were more alert on the MSLT than were normal sleepers who underwent lab PSG. However, these insomnia sufferers showed a greater propensity toward attention lapses on selected reaction time tests than did either of the two normal control groups (i.e. either those who slept in the lab or those who slept at home). The results suggest the nocturnal sleep setting (home vs. lab) may affect subsequent MSLT and performance test comparisons of insomnia sufferers and normal sleepers.

Summary: Complaints of daytime dysfunction are common among chronic insomniacs, but laboratory compari­ sons of insomniacs and age-matched and gender-matched normal controls have generally failed to document these complaints. However, a few studies, which allowed subjects to sleep in their homes on the nights before daytime testing, have shown some relative diurnal deficits among insomniacs. The current study compared the effects of nocturnal laboratory and home polysomnogram (PSG) studies on subsequent daytime test results among older insomniacs and normal sleepers. Insomniacs (n = 32) and normal sleepers (n = 32) were randomly assigned to first undergo three nights of nocturnal PSG monitoring either in the sleep laboratory (16 insomniacs, 16 normal sleepers) or in their homes (16 insomniacs, 16 normal sleepers). Following the third night of PSG monitoring, subjects spent I day in the sleep laboratory, where they completed a four-trial multiple sleep latency test along with four trials of a computer-administered performance test battery. Results showed that insomniacs, as a group, were slightly, albeit consistently, sleepier than were normal sleepers following nights of home sleep monitoring, but a reverse of this trend was found among subjects who underwent nocturnal laboratory PSG before daytime testing. Furthermore, normal sleepers showed faster reaction times on a signal detection task than did insomniacs within the subgroup who underwent home PSGs prior to such testing. However, within the subgroup that underwent nocturnal laboratory PSGs, insomniacs' signal detection reaction times were significantly faster than those shown by normal sleepers. Results provide some support for the speculation that the nocturnal PSG monitoring site, used as a precursor to daytime testing, may systematically affect daytime comparisons between insomniacs and matched