Table 5.
Post-Hoc Pairwise Comparisons (vs Sham) of Subjective Sleep Assessmenta the Morning After Enhancing or Disruptive Nights.b
| Subjective Assessment by Condition | EMMc | t | Estimate of Fixed Effect |
p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of awakenings | ||||
| Disruptive | 10.9 | 5.17 | 8.0 | <.001 |
| Enhancing | 2.6 | −0.16 | −0.3 | .873 |
| Total sleep time (mins)d | ||||
| Disruptive | 408.8 | −3.71 | −82.5 | .002 |
| Enhancing | 476.9 | −0.65 | −14.4 | .527 |
| Sleep qualitye | ||||
| Disruptive | 2.3 | −5.35 | −2.5 | <.001 |
| Enhancing | 4.5 | −0.54 | −0.3 | .598 |
| Residual sleepinessf | ||||
| Disruptive | 1.9 | 2.33 | 1.1 | .029 |
| Enhancing | 1.0 | 0.52 | 0.3 | .609 |
| Sleep’s restorative valueg | ||||
| Disruptive | 2.0 | −4.09 | −2.3 | <.001 |
| Enhancing | 4.3 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 1.000 |
Notes: Differences in subjectively assessed sleep on the day after study intervention nights and Sham. Omnibus effect of condition was significant for all outcomes except Residual Sleepiness (see Table S6), which was marginally significant (p = .069). No order or interaction effects were significant for subjective measures. aAs reported through survey the morning after awakening from a given condition. bGeneral linear model. cEstimated marginal mean. dNot including awakenings; participants were asked to report in hours and minutes, and data were converted to minutes. e1, Extremely bad; 7, Extremely good. f1, Not sleepy at all; 7, Extremely sleepy. g1, Not refreshed at all; 7, Extremely refreshed. Analyses interpreted as statistically significant are indicated with p-values in bold.