Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Jan 7;16(1):e0241188. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241188

Mothers’ sleep deficits and cognitive performance: Moderation by stress and age

Kirby Deater-Deckard 1,#, Mamatha Chary 1,*,#, Maureen E McQuillan 2, Angela D Staples 3, John E Bates 4
Editor: Thomas M Olino5
PMCID: PMC7790244  PMID: 33411778

Abstract

There are well-known associations between stress, poor sleep, and cognitive deficits, but little is known about their interactive effects, which the present study explored in a sample of mothers of toddlers. Since certain types of cognitive decline start during the 20s and continue into later ages, we also explored whether mothers’ age interacted with stress and sleep in the prediction of cognitive functioning. We hypothesized that poorer sleep [measured using one week of 24-hour wrist actigraphy data] and having more chronic stressors [e.g., life events, household chaos, work/family role conflict] would be linked with poorer cognitive performance [both executive function and standardized cognitive ability tasks], and that the interactive combination of poorer sleep and more stressors would account for the effect. We also explored whether this process operated differently for younger versus older women. In a socioeconomically and geographically diverse community sample of 227 women with toddler-age children [age, M = 32.73 yrs, SD = 5.15 yrs], poorer cognitive performance was predicted by greater activity during the sleep period, shorter sleep duration, and lower night-to-night consistency in sleep; it was not associated with higher levels of stress. The interactive effects hypothesis was supported for sleep activity [fragmented sleep] and sleep timing [when mothers went to bed]. The combination of more exposure to stressors and frequent night waking was particularly deleterious for older women’s performance. For younger women, going to bed late was associated with poorer performance if they were experiencing high levels of stress; for those experiencing low levels of stress, going to bed late was associated with better performance.

Introduction

Cognitive performance is related to adaptive function in many spheres of life such as completion of goal-directed behavior, regulation in interpersonal relationships, and various aspects of behavioral self-control [1], so it is important to understand how differences in cognition arise. Deficits in cognitive functioning among healthy individuals are more prevalent among those who have poorer sleep and those who face more chronic stressors [2, 3]. Poor sleep degrades cognitive processing speed, efficiency, and accuracy by reducing alertness and vigilance [4, 5]. Exposure to chronic stressors also negatively affects cognition by taking up cognitive resources and presenting persistent and distracting concerns [57]. These findings raise the question of whether the stress and sleep predictors independently or interactively predict variance in cognitive functioning.

Another relevant question is whether effects of stress and sleep are further modulated by age differences, which have been shown in some studies of cognitive functioning [8, 9]. There is considerable heterogeneity in cognitive functioning across the lifespan, with certain types of cognitive abilities beginning to decline in the 20s and some not beginning noticeable decline until later ages [10]. In the current study, we addressed these questions by focusing on mothers in their 20s through 40s- since for many women, these years are marked by the entry into parenthood [i.e., in the United States, nearly 90% have a child by the time they are 44; 11], which results in both disrupted sleep and higher stress due in part to childrearing demands [12, 13]. While extensive literature has covered changes in mothers’ postpartum sleep, fewer studies have examined sleep in mothers of toddlers, after the postpartum period. Toddlerhood is a period of time characterized by a number of normative changes in child sleep which could influence mothers’ sleep including decreases in daytime sleep [14], decreases in night awakenings [15], and decreases in the total amount of sleep [16]. These years are also marked by high levels of stress for mothers, due to factors such as having to create and maintain a work/home balance, face increases in negativity/oppositionality in child behavior, and manage daily parenting “hassles” [17]. Mothers are an understudied population in the research on sleep and stress effects on cognition, with even less research taking into account maternal age differences.

Stress, sleep and cognition

Exposure to chronic stressors leads to decrements in cognitive functioning and sleep [1820] via complex processes that disrupt circadian hormones that regulate the stress response and sleep-wake cycle [2123]. Chronic stress also increases allostatic load; the “wear and tear” on the body’s psychological and physiological systems involved in stress reactivity and regulation [24]. Stress reallocates finite executive control resources to deal with the stressor at hand, thus impairing top-down cognitive processes such as executive function [6].

Exposure to daily stress is also associated with high levels of day-to-day sleep variability in terms of duration and timing [25]. For example, individuals who experience high levels of daily stress may have short and fragmented sleep on one night, but due to sleep deprivation and sleepiness, may sleep longer on the next night. Thus, stress is associated with variability in sleep duration and nighttime wakings. In a similar vein, poor sleep marked by short durations and nighttime wakings is also implicated in cognitive performance differences, due to increases in fatigue and degradation in alertness and attention [3, 26]. Studies show that even one night of many nighttime wakings is associated with poorer performance on sustained attention and working memory tasks the next day [27]. Later sleep timing [which is more common among those experiencing daily stress; 28] may have associations with poorer memory performance, in part through covarying morphological changes in the hippocampus [29]. Thus, research suggests that multiple aspects of sleep [e.g., timing, duration, consistency, wakings/activity] should be considered, when examining sleep problems as they relate to stress and cognition.

Women with young children are one subset of the population that face the intersection of both poorer sleep and higher levels of stress. Mothers tend to have poorer sleep than non-parenting women due in part, to their own children’s sleep disruptions [12]. In terms of stress, in the current study of women with young children, we focused on inclusion of specific stressors that have been shown to be quite prevalent and influential for this segment of the population and are known risk factors for decrements in health and cognitive function. These include living in a poorly regulated and noisy or “chaotic” home environment [30], caring for a child with disruptive behavior problems such as aggression or inattention symptoms [13], being a single parent [31], from a lower socioeconomic bracket [32], facing adverse life events such as negative job or relationship changes [33], facing chronic daily parenting hassles [34], lacking access to social support from other adults [35], and experiencing “role overload” at home and work [36].

Normative aging throughout the lifespan also plays a key role in explaining effects of stress and sleep on cognitive performance. For women and men alike, from the late 20s onward, cognitive decline occurs in processes involved in effortful memory storage, manipulation, and use of information [including executive function- EF, described below as part of the cognitive self-regulation system], along with more automatic factors involving processing speed, verbal ability, and non-executive memory [37, 38]. In addition, sleep difficulties increase for women and men alike, starting from the early 20s [39]. Sharp declines are seen in slow wave sleep, sleep duration and uninterrupted sleep, reflected in poorer quality sleep and insomnia [18, 40, 41].

At the same time, for some individuals, development from young adulthood into older age is accompanied by positive adaptive growth—in psychological and physical coping mechanisms, goals, healthy behaviors, and personal contentment [e.g., exercise, stress management, social engagement, challenging cognitive engagement] that can offset age-related declines [4244]. For example, there is evidence that older mothers tend to have higher levels of education and greater financial security [45, 46]. There is also evidence that older mothers report lower rates of conflict with children and higher self-efficacy in parenting [47, 48]. For these reasons, another goal of the current study was to examine whether the hypothesized interaction between sleep difficulties and stressors would operate differently for younger versus older women, spanning the 20s, 30s, and 40s.

Study aims and hypotheses

Among adult women, poorer sleep covaries with higher exposure to chronic stressors [e.g., less social support and the many stressors that are correlated with lower socioeconomic status; 49, 50]. However, it is not known whether and how greater exposure to chronic stressors and poorer sleep work together [i.e., independently, or interactively] to contribute to decrements in cognitive performance—and, whether this operates differently for younger versus older adults. It is important to examine potential non-independent interactive effects between potential predictors, because information about independent effects of those predictors is incomplete and misleading if those predictors’ effects are actually conditioned on the level[s] of the other predictors [51]. Based on the literature, our first hypothesis of “independent effects” was that poorer cognitive performance would be found for women who had both poorer sleep and more stressors [prior to testing for an interaction between sleep and stress]. Second, we hypothesized an interactive effect, whereby poorer sleep would be predictive of poorer cognitive performance, but more so for mothers who reported a higher number of stressors. Our third and final aim was to investigate whether that interactive effect operated similarly or differently for younger versus older women [i.e., a three-way interaction effect with maternal age]. For this third aim, two competing hypotheses seemed plausible given the research literature. On the one hand, the anticipated stress/sleep interactive effect might be attenuated for older women because they may have acquired a broader set of effective stress management strategies from experience and may be of higher SES [i.e., older age as a resiliency factor]. On the other hand, the stress/sleep interaction effect might be strongest for older women, because of normative declines in stress regulation and cognitive systems that accompany typical aging [i.e., older age as a risk factor].

Method

Participants

The Institutional Review Boards at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (IRB 12–811) and Indiana University (IRB 0811000120) approved the studies. Written consent was obtained by participants. The study included two community samples of women with 2.5-year-old toddlers in Indiana and Virginia. Recruitment was primarily accomplished through a database using county birth records and community outreach efforts, such as through the local Head Start agency and the Housing Authority. Advertisements were also used, such as postcards and flyers throughout the community. Transportation was offered and compensation was provided to all participants.

The present sample included 241 women with actigraphy and cognitive performance data. Participants were 21 to 50 years old [mean [M] = 32.75, standard deviation [SD] = 5.12]; their toddler-aged children were 2.5 years old on average [age range: 30.12–33.24 months; 51% female]. This was the only child in 30% of the families. Just over half of the families [57%] had two or three children in the home, and the remaining 13% had four or more children. Using information gathered on parent education and occupational prestige, the sample was middle class [range = 15.5–66, M = 48.81, SD = 17.76; Hollingshead, 1975; 56]. Just over one-quarter [28%] of the mothers worked 40 or more hours per week outside the home, just under half of the sample [41%] worked outside the home fewer than 40 hours per week, and the remaining third [31%] did not work outside the home. This is representative of the US population generally, in which about 70% of households with young children have a part-time or full-time employed mother [52]. Ninety percent of mothers were White, 4% were Hispanic/Latinx, 3% were African American/Black, 1% were Asian American, and 2% identified as mixed race, American Indian, or other. Eighty-four percent of the mothers were married, 4% were divorced, separated, or remarried, and the remaining 12% were single mothers who had not married the target child’s biological father.

Procedure

Women completed a survey and participated in home and lab visits. They wore a wrist actigraph for one week and visited the lab to complete a battery of cognitive tasks and fill out questionnaires.

Measures

Stressors

There are many ways to operationalize chronic stressors. In the current study, we used a cumulative or multiple stressor index, to represent individual differences in exposure to a group of covarying chronic stressors that are relatively common for adult women. In this method, it is assumed that the numbers and severity of stressors all work together in a cumulative fashion to explain associations with other constructs. Cumulative risk indexes [CRI’s] have been shown to be more predictive of negative outcomes, relative to the study of a single risk factor [53]. We preferred this approach to approaches that focus on a small number of stressors and examine each stressor in isolation [54]. Although there is not consensus about which stress variables should be examined, previous research has shown that the precise combination of stressors may not be as important compared to the mere choice to consider risk in aggregate [55]. Indicators of interest included low SES [based on Hollingshead, 1975; 56], being a single parent [coded 0 = two-parent family, 1 = one-parent family], having more stressful life events, low social support, high levels of child misbehavior, more daily parenting task demands, higher household chaos, and greater role overload. This cumulative risk index was also used in the McQuillan et al., 2019 paper on the same sample of mothers [57].

On the Changes and Adjustments Questionnaire [CAQ; 58], mothers reported their stressful life events over the past year [e.g., moving, renovations, death in family] from a list of seventeen events; a total score was used [M = 2.34 events, SD = 2.27 events, α = .93].

On the Social Support scale [59], mothers rated their informational and companionship supports or lack of supports using a four-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 = never to 4 = often. The eleven lack of support items assessed the frequency of unwanted advice or intrusion, the failure of others to provide help, others’ unsympathetic or insensitive behavior, and experiences of social rejection or neglect. An average score across these 11 items was computed [M = 1.00, SD = 0.63, α = .89].

To assess child misbehavior, the externalizing behavior scale of the Child Behavior Checklist [CBCL 1 ½—5; 60], the intensity scale of Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory [ECBI; 61], and the child misbehavior scale [62] were used. The CBCL externalizing scale was comprised of the sum of aggression, attention problems, and rule breaking items rated as 0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, and 2 = very true or often true [M = 11.86, SD = 7.29, α = .91]. The ECBI intensity scale asks mothers to use a 7-point Likert scale [1 = never to 7 = always] to report frequency of child oppositional behaviors, such as “dawdles in getting dressed” and “argues with parents about rules,”. A summed score was computed [M = 103.93, SD = 22.79, α = .89]. The Child Misbehavior Scale assesses the frequency over the past six months of 12 misbehaviors such as “tantrums” and “hits/bothers adults”. Items were rated on a three-point Likert scale, 0 = does not happen, 1 = happens sometimes, or 2 = happens a lot. The sum of these items was computed [M = 7.31, SD = 3.01, α = .72].

To assess parenting daily hassles, women completed the Parenting Daily Events scale [63]; the parenting tasks subscale was used [eight items]. Mothers rated the frequency [1 = never to 4 = constantly; range 0–32] and intensity [1 = no hassle to 5 = big hassle; range: 0–40] of common parenting demands [e.g., cleaning messes, managing schedules]. The sum of the ratings of frequency and intensity for these eight items was computed for a final score [M = 40.31, SD = 8.39, α = .81].

The level of household chaos was reported using the Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale [CHAOS, 64]. Women responded to 12 binary [1 = yes, 0 = no] indicators [e.g., “You can’t hear yourself think in our home”, “It’s a real zoo in our home”]. These were summed to form a chaos score [M = 3.56, SD = 2.87, α = 0.79].

We assessed women’s role overload using the revised 6-item Reilly Role Overload Scale [65]. Examples of items are, “I need more hours in the day to do all the things that are expected of me,” and “There are times when I cannot meet everyone’s expectations.” Items were rated on a seven-point Likert scale [1 = never to 7 = always], and the average of the items was computed [M = 4.39, SD = 0.99, α = .80].

In a final step for operationalizing exposure to stressors, we computed a multiple-indicator index score [54]. Indicators first were standardized, and then summed and standardized again, to yield a composite z-score [range = -2.41 to 3.88; modest positive skew] with higher scores representing greater exposure to multiple chronic stressors. Indicators included the stressful life events, single parenthood, Hollingshead SES [reversed], lack of social support, CBCL externalizing problems, ECBI intensity scale, the child misbehavior scale, parenting daily hassles, household chaos, and role overload [57].

Sleep

To measure sleep, mothers wore a watch-like actigraph on their non-dominant wrist. The actigraph, the MicroMini Motionlogger from Ambulatory Monitoring, Inc. [AMI; Ardsley, NY], recorded minute-by-minute patterns of motor activity. Actigraph data were scored with the Motionlogger Analysis Software Package Action W-2 software [version 2.6.92] from Ambulatory Monitoring, Inc. The Cole-Kripke algorithm, which has been validated for adults and shown to provide reliable estimates of sleep indexes when averaged over seven nights, was used to reduce the motion data into meaningful sleep variables [66, 67]. Mothers also completed a daily sleep diary to record bedtime, night wakings, and rise times. Minutes asleep while in bed were based on the bedtime reported in the daily diary and actigraphically- determined sleep end [i.e., time awake]. Variables concerning activity during the sleep period and awakenings after sleep onset were based on motion recordings by the actigraph using a moderate sensitivity threshold [68]. Night waking was scored when the activity count was above threshold for at least five minutes.

Of the total sample, 91.7% of the mothers [N = 221] had at least five nights of usable actigraph data, which is in accordance with guidelines as the number of nights needed to yield reliable estimates [67; 69]. Mothers provided on average, 6.72 days of data [SD = 1.41 days]. 7.1% of mothers [N = 17] provided less than 5 nights of data and 1.2% of mothers [N = 3] did not provide any actigraphy data.

Based on a principal components analysis [PCA] with oblique rotation, four overarching sleep components were identified based on the actigraphic and diary variables aggregated across the week of data collection. Four composite variables were created based on the highest loading variables for each component- 1] sleep duration, 2] sleep variability, 3] sleep activity, and 4] sleep timing [57; 70]. The composite representing sleep duration is composed of the mean of z-scored [standardized] actigraph variables including average time the mother spent in bed each night, the time the mother spends in bed after sleep onset, and the time the mother spent asleep each night [M = -.05, SD = .86]. The composite representing sleep variability is composed of the mean of standardized actigraph variables including the night-to- night standard deviations of: time of sleep onset, duration of time spent in bed at night, time spent asleep at night not including night wakings, and time at which the mid-point of sleep occurred [M = .06, SD = .85]. The composite representing sleep activity is composed of the mean of z-scored actigraph variables including the average time awake after sleep onset, the average of the standard deviation of minute-to-minute activity level, the average number of night wakings lasting at least five minutes, the average duration of the longest wake episode after sleep onset, and the average percent of active epochs after sleep onset [M = -.07, SD = .83]. The composite representing sleep timing is composed of the mean of z-scored actigraph variables including the average time of midsleep, average time of sleep onset, and the average bedtime reported on the sleep diary [M = .01, SD = .96]. These four sleep components explained 82% of the variance in 17 actigraphy variables and were used in all subsequent analyses. The four sleep composites demonstrated strong internal consistency [average α = .92, ranging from .89 to .93 across composites].

Cognitive performance

We measured cognitive performance using an executive function [EF] task battery and a short IQ test. We measured EF with four tasks that measured aspects of attention/set shifting, inhibitory control, and working memory [71]. Mothers completed three of the four standard EF tasks on a desktop or laptop computer: Tower of Hanoi [72], Wisconsin Card Sort [73], and Stroop Color-Word [74]. They also completed a backward digit span task, while face to face with a research assistant who recorded their responses on a score sheet. Tower of Hanoi involved moving three disks of different sizes to a target peg keeping the original order, using two rules: only one disk could be moved each turn, and larger disks could not be placed on smaller disks. Time to completion was used as the score for the task, M = 33.17 secs, SD = 16.89 secs. For the Wisconsin Card Sort task, mothers were presented with four stimulus cards with different colors, quantities, and shapes and were asked to match a stack of cards to the original stimulus cards according to a matching rule [i.e., either by color, quantity, or shape]. The matching rule changed without warning, and the participant had to infer the new rule based on feedback from the computer regarding correct and incorrect responses. We used total number of correct trials [reflected, log transformed, and again reflected to transform to reduce skew], M = 51.90 trials, SD = 7.32 trials. For the Stroop task, mothers selected among keyboard keys representing various colors. The task involved four blocks of 20 trials each: for block 1, mothers were asked to select the color key corresponding to the name of the color written in black ink; for block 2, they were asked to select the color key corresponding to the ink color of the matching color word [i.e., congruent condition]; for block 3, they were asked to select the color key corresponding to the ink color of a nonmatching color word [i.e., incongruent condition]; and finally, for block 4, they were asked to select the color key based on the ink color of a matching or nonmatching color word [i.e., mixed congruent and incongruent condition]. We used the percent of correct responses during the mixed congruent and incongruent trial block [the fourth block], M = 96.52%, SD = 10.21%. For backward digit span, an experimenter read a random series of single-digit numbers [0–9] and the participant attempted to reproduce the sequence in reverse. Each participant was given two chances to correctly reproduce the sequence, and the task ended when the participant got two consecutive sequences wrong. We used the highest sequence length correctly completed, M = 5.86 digits, SD = 1.36 digits. These tasks and scores do not have widely established norms, but the distributions were similar to other recent studies of adult women in community samples [e.g., 30, 75].

Time to completion from the Tower of Hanoi was reverse-scored so that higher scores corresponded with better EF task performance. A principal components analysis with a forced single component solution was executed [40% explained variance, loadings from .49 to .72]. The four standardized indicators were averaged and standardized again to yield a widely and normally distributed EF z-score. If mothers had scores on two of the four EF tasks, their data was used in the EF composite. Eight participants were excluded from analysis because they had only one task score.

The Shipley IQ test [76] also was administered. The vocabulary task [40 items] had participants read a target word and then select the most synonymous of four other words. The abstract reasoning task [20 items] involved filling a blank space in an increasingly complex sequence of numbers or letters to complete a pattern in each sequence. Each item was scored 0 = incorrect or 1 = correct. Because we were interested in age differences, we used the raw total score instead of age-normed standard scores: correct vocabulary items + [2*correct abstract reasoning items]; maximum possible score = 80; M = 63.79, SD = 9.63, range = 25 to 79 [mean t-score = 105, range of t-scores from 67–121]. The Shipley and EF composite scores were moderately correlated, r = .49. We standardized the Shipley score, then averaged it with the EF z-score and standardized again to compute an overall cognitive performance z-score that was widely and normally distributed.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations are shown in Tables 1 and 2. There was significant covariation among greater sleep variability, later timing of sleep, shorter sleep duration, and having more stressors. Greater sleep activity also was associated with shorter sleep duration. Cognitive performance scores were lower for women with shorter sleep duration, and more variable and active sleep. To create two groups of women based on age, we categorized women with z-scores on age less than ‘0’ as “younger” women [N = 121, M = 28.86 years, SD = 2.93 years, range was 21–32 years] and those with z-scores on age greater than ‘0’ as “older" women [N = 120, M = 36.67, SD = 3.66, range was 33–50]. Parent age was not significantly associated with any of the sleep composites except sleep timing—older mothers tended to have earlier sleep timing, i.e., go to bed earlier. Parent age was also not correlated with scores on the cumulative stress index, however on the separate stress measures, older mothers reported more lack of social support, higher role overload, higher child externalizing problems, and higher SES. Parent scores on cognitive performance were not correlated with the stress index; however, lack of social support and lower SES were associated with lower cognitive performance scores. Also, mothers who provided less than 5 nights of data had significantly lower scores on cognitive performance compared to mothers who provided more than 5 nights of data, t(222) = -3.77, p < .001.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

M SD
Average time spent in bed [mins] 483.98 53.78
Average time in bed after sleep onset [mins] 405.77 66.59
Time spent asleep [mins] 453.87 53.86
Time of sleep onset [SD] .64 .38
Time spent in bed [mins; SD] 63.33 32.48
Time of midsleep [SD] .46 .25
Average time awake after sleep onset [mins] 44.76 37.05
Average min-to-min activity level [SD] 36.10 13.42
Average no. of night awakenings 2.39 1.57
Average duration of longest wake episode [mins] 18.63 14.68
Average % active epochs 46.35 13.48
Average time of midsleep [HH:MM1] 3:12 .55
Average time of sleep onset [HH:MM1] 23:55 1:15
Changes and Adjustments Questionnaire 2.34 2.27
Social Support Scale 1.00 .63
CBCL-externalizing subscale 11.86 7.29
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory 103.93 22.79
Child Misbehavior Scale 7.31 3.01
Parenting Daily Hassles 40.31 8.39
Household Chaos 3.56 2.87
Reilly Role Overload 4.39 .99
Tower of Hanoi [seconds] 33.17 16.89
Wisconsin Card Sort [no. of correct trials] 51.90 7.32
Stroop [% correct] 96.52 10.21
Backward DigitSpan [longest sequence correct] 5.86 1.36

Note. All sleep variables refer to nighttime sleep. To account for the discontinuous nature of time in bed that occurs prior to and after midnight, a value of 24 was added to all times occurring after midnight. For illustration, assume a person went to bed at the following times on a 24-hour clock for 7 nights: 22, 23, 22, 00, 02, 21, 22 hours. Without accounting for discontinuity of time at midnight, the average bedtime would incorrectly be 16 hours. Modifying the times to: 22, 23, 22, 24, 26, 21, 22 hours, results in an average bedtime of 22:52 hours. Therefore, time variables that occurred after midnight were adjusted before computing weekly means and standard deviations. All variables, except where indicated, were averaged over seven nights. SD = standard deviation of scores on that variable across participants; (SD) = standard deviation of that variable across seven nights.

Table 2. Correlations.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. Age 1
2. Sleep Duration [z] .03 1
3. Sleep Variability [z] -.06 -.31** 1
4. Sleep Activity [z] -.06 -.16* .12 1
5. Sleep Timing [z] -.16* -.55** .36** .03 1
6. Stressors [z] -.09 -.18** .25** .03 .20** 1
7. Cognitive Performance [z] .09 .14* -.16* -.24** -.05 -.05 1

* p < .05,

** p < .01

To test the hypothesis regarding the link between sleep and cognitive ability and to explore the moderating effect of age and stress, we ran four hierarchical linear regressions separately for each of the four sleep composite scores. For each equation, we entered main effects at step 1[standardized values of all predictors]; at step 2, we entered the two-way interaction terms with stress and age [created by multiplying the standardized values of sleep, stress, and age]; and at step 3, we entered the three-way interaction term created by multiplying the standardized values of the sleep composite, stress, and age. Two of the four equations yielded significant effects: sleep activity and sleep timing.

Sleep activity

The equation for sleep activity was significant, F [7, 222] = 3.72, p < .001, R2 = .11. There was a significant main effect of sleep activity [β = -.21, p = .002] and a significant three-way interaction between sleep activity, stress, and age [see Table 3]. To interpret the three-way interaction, we used the Johnson-Neyman technique [77] separately for younger versus older women (median split on age). This technique allowed us to examine the regions where the slope between sleep activity and cognition as a function of stress was statistically significant. For younger women [see Fig 1a], the simple slopes did not change across levels of stress. For older women [see Fig 1b], the association between sleep activity and cognition was positive at low levels of stress. However, at average and high levels of stress, the association between sleep activity and cognition was negative and significant.

Table 3. Hierarchical multiple regression equation predicting cognitive performance from sleep activity.

B S.E. β T p
Sleep Activity -.21 .07 -.21 -3.1 .002
Age .10 .07 .10 1.48 .141
Stress -.02 .07 -.02 -.31 .756
Activity X Age .11 .07 .11 1.56 .119
Activity X Stress -.12 .07 -.11 -1.70 .091
Stress X Age -.002 .06 -.002 -.04 .970
Activity X Stress X Age -.16 .06 -.19 -2.72 .007

Fig 1.

Fig 1

a. Johnson-Neyman regions of significance showing that for younger mothers, the effect size of the association between sleep activity and cognition do not vary much across levels of chronic stress. Red lines represent confidence intervals. Area in between the blue lines represent where the confidence interval includes zero, thus, the region where simple slopes between sleep timing and cognition are non-significant. Area outside the blue lines represent significant slopes. b. Johnson-Neyman regions of significance showing that for older mothers, the effect size of the association between sleep activity and cognition is significant and strongly negative for those experiencing high levels of stress. Red lines represent the confidence intervals. Area in between the blue lines represent where the confidence interval includes zero, thus, the region where simple slopes between sleep timing and cognition are non-significant. Area outside the blue lines represent significant slopes.

Sleep timing

In the sleep timing equation, the three-way interaction term between sleep timing, stress, and age was significant, β = 0.23, p = .01 [see Table 4]. To interpret the three-way interaction, we again used the Johnson-Neyman technique separately for younger versus older women. For younger women [see Fig 2a], at lower levels of stress, the relationship between sleep timing and cognition was positive and significant; later bedtimes were associated with better cognitive performance. For younger women with higher levels of stress, the relationship between sleep timing and cognition was negative and significant; later bedtimes were associated with poorer cognitive performance. For older women [see Fig 2b], there were no significant associations between sleep timing and cognition regardless of level of stress.

Table 4. Hierarchical multiple regression equation predicting cognitive performance from sleep timing.

B S.E. β T p
Sleep Timing -.06 .07 -.06 -.90 .368
Age .03 .07 .03 .46 .644
Stress -.01 .07 -.01 -.06 .949
Timing X Age .02 .08 .02 .20 .842
Timing X Stress .07 .08 .06 .82 .415
Stress X Age -.12 .08 -.13 -1.59 .114
Timing X Stress X Age .21 .08 .23 2.58 .010

Fig 2.

Fig 2

a. Johnson-Neyman regions of significance showing that for younger mothers, the effect size of the association between sleep timing and cognition is positive at low levels of stress and negative at high levels of stress. Red lines represent the confidence intervals. Area in between the blue lines represents where the confidence interval includes zero, thus, the region where simple slopes between sleep timing and cognition are non-significant. Areas outside the blue lines represent significant slopes. b. Johnson-Neyman regions of significance showing that for older mothers, the effect size of the association between sleep timing and cognition do not vary much across levels of chronic stress. Red lines represent the confidence intervals. Absence of blue lines indicate that none of the slopes are significant.

Sleep duration and variability

For the other two sleep variables, neither contributed to a significant predictive equation: duration, F [7, 223] = 1.11, p = .356, R2 = .04; variability, F [7, 223] = 1.72, p = .106, R2 = .05. However, two patterns are noteworthy. First, there were significant or trending towards significant main effects of two sleep variables in the prediction of better cognitive performance: longer durations, β = .13, p = .06, and lower variability, β = -.18, p = .017. Second, in all four equations, stressor level was unrelated to cognitive performance [βs from -.02 to .007, ps > .7].

Discussion

Separate literatures show that higher levels of stress and poorer sleep are each linked with diminished cognitive performance. More research is needed to examine the intersection of these two factors in explaining individual differences in cognition [8]. Mothers of toddlers are an understudied population in cognition research who experience both higher levels of stress and poorer sleep. To that end, in the current study we examined whether the link between cognitive performance and cumulative stress [due to single parenthood, child behavior problems, socioeconomic risk, low levels of social support, stressful life events, household chaos, and daily parenting hassles] in mothers of 2.5-year-olds would depend in part on various facets of maternal sleep including duration, variability, activity, and timing [hypotheses 1 and 2]. If there was an interaction effect between stress and sleep, we also planned to explore whether this moderation effect differed for younger versus older women [hypothesis 3].

Multiple regression analyses revealed that stress and the sleep facets did not independently predict variance in maternal cognitive performance [no support for hypothesis 1], suggesting that stress effects on cognition are conditioned on level of sleep activity/variability/timing/duration, i.e., the association between stress and cognition differs depending on mother’s level of sleep [e.g. high versus low activity]. There was an interaction effect between stress, sleep activity and age [support for hypotheses 2 and 3]. For younger women, post-hoc probing using the Johnson-Neyman method showed that the link between stress and executive function was not moderated by sleep activity, i.e., they performed similarly well on the tasks regardless of how much sleep activity they experienced. In contrast, for older women there was a moderating effect of sleep activity [support for hypothesis 3]. Older women who had both high levels of stress and high levels of sleep activity performed substantially less well on the cognitive tasks compared to all other subgroups of women. The pattern suggested that motor activity, which we are interpreting as an index of sleep fragmentation, may be particularly likely to impair cognitive regulation and functioning in the face of chronic stressors, especially among older women.

There was also an interaction effect between stress, sleep timing, and age [support for hypotheses 2 and 3]. For younger women, the Johnson-Neyman plots suggested that the association between sleep timing and cognition functioned differently depending on the level of stress. For young mothers with low stress, the relationship between sleep timing and cognition was positive, i.e., later bedtimes were associated with higher cognitive performance. In comparison, for younger mothers with higher levels of stress, later bedtimes were associated with poorer cognitive performance. Regarding this somewhat surprising finding for lower-stress younger women, there is one study suggesting that higher SES is associated with later bedtimes in parents [78]. The lower-stress younger mothers in our sample also were most likely to be higher SES (since SES indicators were included in the stress index), so this may have something to do with this surprising finding—although we do not have an explanation to offer at this time. In contrast, at higher levels of stress, younger mothers with a later bedtime showed poorer cognitive performance, suggesting that going to bed later in combination with living with high levels of psychosocial stress may impair cognitive performance. Among older women, there was no moderating effect of stress on the relationship between sleep timing and cognition, i.e., the mothers performed similarly on the cognitive performance tasks regardless of whether they had early or late bedtimes. This suggests that older mothers may not benefit from nor be negatively affected by going to bed at earlier or later times in terms of cognitive performance across a range of chronic stress levels.

Exposure to chronic stressors is thought to affect cognitive performance through changes in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis [HPA] and hippocampal volume [2, 79]. High levels of HPA activity and continual dysregulation of this network of physiologic mediators lead to increased “allostatic load” on the brain, which results in impairments in learning and higher order cognitive processes. Daily stressors can also produce these transient effects by reducing the amount of attentional resources available for information processing [80]. During normative aging, these effects only become more deleterious on cognitive performance [81].

Sleep is another strong predictor of cognitive functioning. Through tissue restoration and metabolite clearance, sleep aids in consolidating memories and improving executive and attentional control [82]. Increased nighttime wakings and short sleep durations are associated with poorer executive function performance such as working memory, inhibitory control, and attentional control [83].

Mothers of toddlers are one subgroup of the population that experience both chronic high levels of stress and poorer sleep [12, 57]. Because stress has been implicated in sleep quality and quantity, with high levels of cortisol being an indicator of both higher stress and poorer sleep [84], further research is warranted to examine the interplay of these two variables in mothers and their parenting behavior. There are many sources of stress for parents of young children such as, but not limited to, lack of social support, hard-to-manage child behavior, chaotic household, low socioeconomic status, stressful life changes, and daily parenting challenges. Each of these chronic stressors may have individual effects on parenting, and it is also likely that the number of these stressors and the severity of them cumulatively predict larger individual differences in detrimental outcomes [54]. Exposure to multiple risk factors worsens outcomes more than exposure to merely one risk factor. Thus, in this study, we examined how a cumulative stress risk index composed of these common parenting stressors was associated with cognitive performance in a sample of mothers of 2.5-year-olds. Because sleep and age have also been found to predict cognitive performance, we explored how this association was moderated by various facets of maternal sleep and age. We tested two competing hypotheses: 1] the anticipated stress/sleep interactive effect might be diminished for older mothers because they have acquired more strategies to cope with such demands, or 2] the hypothesized interaction effect might be strongest for older women because of the stress regulation network and cognitive system decline that occurs during typical aging.

Our findings show support for the second hypothesis. Nighttime activity, which involves night waking, was particularly detrimental to older mothers who were experiencing a high level of chronic stressors. These mothers performed much more poorly on tasks measuring cognition, suggesting that it was the cumulative effect of higher stress, poorer sleep, and older age that was predictive of variance in cognitive performance. We also found some effect of sleep timing for younger mothers who experienced low levels of stress. In this subgroup, the mothers who went to bed later performed significantly better on the cognitive performance tasks. When younger mothers experienced high levels of stress, going to bed later predicted poorer performance. This suggests that for younger mothers, the role of sleep timing may be less straightforward than it is for older women. Going to bed at later times may not be particularly detrimental for young mothers if they experience low levels of stress; indeed, for them, a later bedtime may indicate an adaptive mechanism. However, we cannot identify what explains this effect in these analyses, so results should be interpreted with caution. Neither sleep duration nor sleep variability significantly moderated the link between stress and cognition for either age group.

A few limitations of the study must be considered when interpreting the results. First, the analyses for this paper only included data from one time point, so it was not possible to examine the bidirectional nature of the association between chronic stressors and cognitive performance across time. It is possible that mothers with poorer cognitive ability may be less able to regulate daily stress and thus, have poorer sleep. Longitudinal studies on mother cognition and sleep would be required to explore the potential temporal patterns of the covariation between stress, sleep and cognition. Second, the sleep information that we analyzed did not include daytime naps, so the results reflect only nighttime sleep patterns. Third, the study relied on mother self-report on all measures of stressors, which could result in informant bias, e.g., mothers who had poorer sleep may have been more likely to rate their children more negatively on misbehavior [85]. Alternate measures of constructs such as child misbehavior and household chaos would provide additional information. Fourth, in the current sample, 90% of the mothers were White. Since there is some work suggesting that there are racial disparities in parent and child sleep [8689], the current results may be less generalizable to non-White samples. Fifth, this was also a relatively advantaged sample with most mothers reporting low levels of stress [only 16% of the mothers were single parents and 74% of mothers had college degrees]. While there was enough variation in the sample to test the hypotheses in this paper, further research is needed to examine a wider range of socioeconomic levels.

Nevertheless, our study used a socioeconomically diverse sample that was representative of the communities where the study was conducted. Also, apart from the self-report on stressors, other main constructs of the study, sleep and cognitive performance, were measured in more objective ways. Thus, despite some limitations, our study provides a valuable look into factors that explain individual differences in cognitive performance in mothers. No other study, to our knowledge, has examined the intersection of stress, sleep, and age as factors in mothers’ cognitive performance. Mothers could be especially affected by stress, sleep, and aging, when rearing young children. We were not only able to replicate previous research that shows that exposure to chronic stress is linked with both cognitive performance and sleep, but that the link between stress and cognition is moderated by nighttime waking, sleep timing, and age. Our results and conclusions emphasize the importance of examining a variety of contextual influences that may affect cognitive performance in adults.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset

(SAV)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The study has been funded by Grants MH099437 from the National Institute of Mental Health and HD073202 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

References

  • 1.Hofmann W, Schmeichel BJ, Baddeley AD. Executive functions and self-regulation. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2012. March 1;16(3):174–80. 10.1016/j.tics.2012.01.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Saleh A, Potter GG, McQuoid DR, Boyd B, Turner R, MacFall JR, et al. Effects of early life stress on depression, cognitive performance and brain morphology. Psychol Med. 2017. January;47(1):171–81. 10.1017/S0033291716002403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Killgore WD. Effects of sleep deprivation on cognition In Progress in brain research 2010. January 1 (Vol. 185, pp. 105–129). Elsevier. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Miyata S, Noda A, Iwamoto K, Kawano N, Okuda M, Ozaki N. Poor sleep quality impairs cognitive performance in older adults. J Sleep Res. 2013. October;22(5):535–41. 10.1111/jsr.12054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kerkhof GA, Van Dongen H. Human sleep and cognition: Basic research. Elsevier; 2010. November 26. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Shields GS, Sazma MA, Yonelinas AP. The effects of acute stress on core executive functions: A meta-analysis and comparison with cortisol. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016. September 1;68:651–68. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.06.038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Schwabe L, Joëls M, Roozendaal B, Wolf OT, Oitzl MS. Stress effects on memory: an update and integration. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012. August 1;36(7):1740–9. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Maggio M, Colizzi E, Fisichella A, Valenti G, Ceresini G, Dall’Aglio E, et al. Stress hormones, sleep deprivation and cognition in older adults. Maturitas. 2013. September 1;76(1):22–44. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2013.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Yaffe K, Falvey CM, Hoang T. Connections between sleep and cognition in older adults. Lancet Neurol. 2014. October 1;13(10):1017–28. 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70172-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hartshorne JK, Germine LT. When does cognitive functioning peak? The asynchronous rise and fall of different cognitive abilities across the life span. Psychol Sci. 2015. April;26(4):433–43. 10.1177/0956797614567339 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Livingston G. They’re waiting longer, but US women today more likely to have children than a decade ago. Pew Research Center Social and Demographic Trends. 2018.
  • 12.Mindell JA, Sadeh A, Kwon R, Goh DY. Relationship between child and maternal sleep: a developmental and cross-cultural comparison. J Pediatr Psychol. 2015. August 1;40(7):689–96. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsv008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Korpa T, Pervanidou P, Angeli E, Apostolakou F, Papanikolaou K, Papassotiriou I, et al. Mothers’ parenting stress is associated with salivary cortisol profiles in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Stress. 2017. March 4;20(2):149–58. 10.1080/10253890.2017.1303472 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Acebo C, Sadeh A, Seifer R, Tzischinsky O, Hafer A, Carskadon MA. Sleep/wake patterns derived from activity monitoring and maternal report for healthy 1-to 5-year-old children. Sleep. 2005. December 1;28(12):1568–77. 10.1093/sleep/28.12.1568 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gaylor EE, Burnham MM, Goodlin-Jones BL, Anders TF. A longitudinal follow-up study of young children’s sleep patterns using a developmental classification system. Behav Sleep Med. 2005. February 1;3(1):44–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Galland BC, Taylor BJ, Elder DE, Herbison P. Normal sleep patterns in infants and children: a systematic review of observational studies. Sleep Med Rev. 2012. June 1;16(3):213–22. 10.1016/j.smrv.2011.06.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kwon KA, Han S, Jeon HJ, Bingham GE. Mothers’ and fathers’ parenting challenges, strategies, and resources in toddlerhood. Early Child Dev Care. 2013. April 1;183(3–4):415–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hall MH, Casement MD, Troxel WM, Matthews KA, Bromberger JT, Kravitz HM, et al. Chronic stress is prospectively associated with sleep in midlife women: the SWAN sleep study. Sleep. 2015. October 1;38(10):1645–54. 10.5665/sleep.5066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Juster RP, McEwen BS, Lupien SJ. Allostatic load biomarkers of chronic stress and impact on health and cognition. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2010. September 1;35(1):2–16. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.10.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Meerlo P., Sgoifo A. and Suchecki D. Restricted and disrupted sleep: effects on autonomic function, neuroendocrine stress systems and stress responsivity. Sleep Med Rev. 2008. October;12(3):197–210. 10.1016/j.smrv.2007.07.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.McEwen BS, Karatsoreos IN. Sleep deprivation and circadian disruption: stress, allostasis, and allostatic load. Sleep Med Clin. 2015. March 1;10(1):1–0. 10.1016/j.jsmc.2014.11.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ekstedt M, Åkerstedt T, Söderström M. Microarousals during sleep are associated with increased levels of lipids, cortisol, and blood pressure. Psychosom Med. 2004. November 1;66(6):925–31. 10.1097/01.psy.0000145821.25453.f7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Van Reeth O, Weibel L, Spiegel K, Leproult R, Dugovic C, Maccari S. Interactions between stress and sleep: from basic research to clinical situations. Sleep Med Rev. 2000. April 1;4(2):201–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lupien SJ, McEwen BS, Gunnar MR, Heim C. Effects of stress throughout the lifespan on the brain, behaviour and cognition. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009. June;10(6):434–45. 10.1038/nrn2639 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mezick EJ, Matthews KA, Hall M, Kamarck TW, Buysse DJ, Owens JF, et al. Intra-individual variability in sleep duration and fragmentation: associations with stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2009. October 1;34(9):1346–54. 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2009.04.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lo JC, Groeger JA, Santhi N, Arbon EL, Lazar AS, Hasan S, et al. Effects of partial and acute total sleep deprivation on performance across cognitive domains, individuals and circadian phase. PloS one. 2012;7(9). 10.1371/journal.pone.0045987 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kahn M, Fridenson S, Lerer R, Bar-Haim Y, Sadeh A. Effects of one night of induced night-wakings versus sleep restriction on sustained attention and mood: a pilot study. Sleep Med. 2014. July 1;15(7):825–32. 10.1016/j.sleep.2014.03.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Âkerstedt T. Psychosocial stress and impaired sleep. Scand J.Work Envrion. Health. 2006. December 1:493–501. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kuperczkó D, Perlaki G, Faludi B, Orsi G, Altbacker A, Kovács N, et al. Late bedtime is associated with decreased hippocampal volume in young healthy subjects. Sleep Biol Rhythms. 2015. January 1;13(1):68–75. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Deater-Deckard K, Wang Z, Chen N, Bell MA. Maternal executive function, harsh parenting, and child conduct problems. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2012. October;53(10):1084–91. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02582.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Solis BD, Elna RL. Stress level and adversity quotient among single working mothers. Asia Pac J Multidiscip Res. 2015. December;3(5):72–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Cassells RC, Evans GW. Ethnic variation in poverty and parenting stress In Parental stress and early child development 2017. (pp. 15–45). Springer, Cham. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Huizink AC, Menting B, De Moor MH, Verhage ML, Kunseler FC, Schuengel C, et al. From prenatal anxiety to parenting stress: a longitudinal study. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2017. October 1;20(5):663–72. 10.1007/s00737-017-0746-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Crnic KA, Greenberg MT, Ragozin AS, Robinson NM, Basham RB. Effects of stress and social support on mothers and premature and full-term infants. Child Dev. 1983. February 1:209–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Taraban L, Shaw DS, Leve LD, Wilson MN, Dishion TJ, Natsuaki MN, et al. Maternal depression and parenting in early childhood: Contextual influence of marital quality and social support in two samples. Dev Psychol. 2017. March;53(3):436 10.1037/dev0000261 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Malinen K, Rönkä A, Sevón E, Schoebi D. The difficulty of being a professional, a parent, and a spouse on the same day: Daily spillover of workplace interactions on parenting, and the role of spousal support. J Prev Interv Community. 2017. July 3;45(3):156–67. 10.1080/10852352.2016.1198121 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Salthouse TA, Atkinson TM, Berish DE. Executive functioning as a potential mediator of age-related cognitive decline in normal adults. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2003. December;132(4):566 10.1037/0096-3445.132.4.566 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Singh-Manoux A, Kivimaki M, Glymour MM, Elbaz A, Berr C, Ebmeier KP, et al. Timing of onset of cognitive decline: results from Whitehall II prospective cohort study. Bmj. 2012. January 5;344:d7622 10.1136/bmj.d7622 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gaudreau H, Carrier J, Montplaisir J. Age‐related modifications of NREM sleep EEG: from childhood to middle age. J Sleep Res. 2001. September 26;10(3):165–72. 10.1046/j.1365-2869.2001.00252.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Blümel JE, Cano A, Mezones-Holguín E, Barón G, Bencosme A, Benítez Z, et al. A multinational study of sleep disorders during female mid-life. Maturitas. 2012. August 1;72(4):359–66. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.05.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Owens JF, Matthews KA. Sleep disturbance in healthy middle-aged women. Maturitas. 1998. September 20;30(1):41–50. 10.1016/s0378-5122(98)00039-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Carstensen LL, DeLiema M. The positivity effect: A negativity bias in youth fades with age. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2018. February;19(1):7–12. 10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.07.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Park DC, Reuter-Lorenz P. The adaptive brain: aging and neurocognitive scaffolding. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009. January 10;60:173–96. 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093656 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Reichstadt J, Sengupta G, Depp CA, Palinkas LA, Jeste DV. Older adults’ perspectives on successful aging: Qualitative interviews. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2010. July 1;18(7):567–75. 10.1097/jgp.0b013e3181e040bb [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Bornstein MH, Putnick DL. Chronological age, cognitions, and practices in European American mothers: A multivariate study of parenting. Dev Psychol. 2007. July;43(4):850 10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.850 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Boivin J, Rice F, Hay D, Harold G, Lewis A, van den Bree MM, et al. Associations between maternal older age, family environment and parent and child wellbeing in families using assisted reproductive techniques to conceive. Soc Sci Med. 2009. June 1;68(11):1948–55. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Barnes J, Leach P, Sylva K, Stein A, Malmberg LE, Families, et al. Infant care in England: Mothers’ aspirations, experiences, satisfaction and caregiver relationships. Early Child Dev Care. 2006. July 1;176(5):553–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Barnes J, Gardiner J, Sutcliffe A, Melhuish E. The parenting of preschool children by older mothers in the United Kingdom. Eur J Dev Psychol. 2014. July 4;11(4):397–419. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Åkerstedt T, Knutsson A, Westerholm P, Theorell T, Alfredsson L, Kecklund G. Sleep disturbances, work stress and work hours: a cross-sectional study. Journal of psychosomatic research. 2002. September 1;53(3):741–8. 10.1016/s0022-3999(02)00333-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.El-Sheikh M, Keiley M, Bagley EJ, Chen E. Socioeconomic adversity and women’s sleep: Stress and chaos as mediators. Behav Sleep Med. 2015. November 2;13(6):506–23. 10.1080/15402002.2014.940110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Lavrakas PJ. Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage Publications; 2008. September 12. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.United States Bureau of Labor. Women in the Labor Force: A Databook. CM1084. [Internet] 2019. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/2019/.
  • 53.Sameroff AJ, Seifer R, Barocas R, Zax M, Greenspan S. Intelligence quotient scores of 4-year-old children: Social-environmental risk factors. Pediatrics. 1987. March 1;79(3):343–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Evans GW, Li D, Whipple SS. Cumulative risk and child development. Psychol Bull. 2013. November;139(6):1342 10.1037/a0031808 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Sameroff AJ, Seifer R, Baldwin A, Baldwin C. Stability of intelligence from preschool to adolescence: The influence of social and family risk factors. Child Dev. 1993. February;64(1):80–97. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02896.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Hollingshead AB. 1975. Four factor index of social status.
  • 57.McQuillan ME, Bates JE, Staples AD, Deater-Deckard K. Maternal stress, sleep, and parenting. J Fam Psych. 2019. February;33(3):349–59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Dodge KA, Pettit GS, Bates JE. Socialization mediators of the relation between socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. Child Dev. 1994. April;65(2):649–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Procidano ME, Heller K. Measures of perceived social support from friends and from family: Three validation studies. Am J Community Psychol. 1983. February;11(1):1–24. 10.1007/BF00898416 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Achenbach TM, Rescorla L. Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles: An integrated system of multi-informant assessment. Burlington, VT: Aseba; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Eyberg S, Boggs SR, Reynolds LA. Eyberg child behavior inventory. Portland, OR: University of Oregon Health Sciences Center; 1980. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Pinderhughes EE, Dodge KA, Bates JE, Pettit GS, Zelli A. Discipline responses: Influences of parents’ socioeconomic status, ethnicity, beliefs about parenting, stress, and cognitive-emotional processes. J Fam Psychol. 2000. September;14(3):380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Crnic KA, Greenberg MT. Minor parenting stresses with young children. Child Dev. 1990. October;61(5):1628–37. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02889.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Matheny AP Jr, Wachs TD, Ludwig JL, Phillips K. Bringing order out of chaos: Psychometric characteristics of the confusion, hubbub, and order scale. J Appl Dev Psychol. 1995. July 1;16(3):429–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Thiagarajan P, Chakrabarty S, Taylor RD. A confirmatory factor analysis of Reilly’s Role Overload Scale. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006. August;66(4):657–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Cole RJ, Kripke DF, Gruen W, Mullaney DJ, Gillin JC. Automatic sleep/wake identification from wrist activity. Sleep. 1992. September 1;15(5):461–9. 10.1093/sleep/15.5.461 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Acebo C, Sadeh A, Seifer R, Tzischinsky O, Wolfson AR, Hafer A, et al. Estimating sleep patterns with activity monitoring in children and adolescents: how many nights are necessary for reliable measures? Sleep. 1999. January 1;22(1):95–103. 10.1093/sleep/22.1.95 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Meltzer LJ, Montgomery-Downs HE, Insana SP, Walsh CM. Use of actigraphy for assessment in pediatric sleep research. Sleep Med Rev. 2012. October 1;16(5):463–75. 10.1016/j.smrv.2011.10.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Sadeh A. Sleep assessment methods. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 2015. March;80(1):33–48. 10.1111/mono.12143 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Staples AD, Bates JE, Petersen IT, McQuillan ME, Hoyniak C. Measuring sleep in young children and their mothers: Identifying actigraphic sleep composites. Int J Behav Dev. 2019. May;43(3):278–85. 10.1177/0165025419830236 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, Witzki AH, Howerter A, Wager TD. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol. 2000. August 1;41(1):49–100. 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Davis HP, Keller FR. Colorado assessment test manual. Colorado Springs: Colorado Assessment Tests; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Heaton RK, Staff PA. Wisconsin card sorting test: Computer version 4, research edition (WCST: CV4). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Stroop JR. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol. 1935. December;18(6):643. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Van der Elst W, Van Boxtel MP, Van Breukelen GJ, Jolles J. The Stroop color-word test: influence of age, sex, and education; and normative data for a large sample across the adult age range. Assessment. 2006. March;13(1):62–79. 10.1177/1073191105283427 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Shipley WC. A self-administering scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration. J Psychol. 1940. April 1;9(2):371–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Ji X. A primer on the Johnson-Neyman technique: An alternative procedure to ANCOVA. General Linear Model Journal. 2016;42(1):25–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Zhang J, Li AM, Fok TF, Wing YK. Roles of parental sleep/wake patterns, socioeconomic status, and daytime activities in the sleep/wake patterns of children. J. Pediatr. 2010. April 1;156(4):606–12. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.10.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Ouanes S, Castelao E, Gebreab S, von Gunten A, Preisig M, Popp J. Life events, salivary cortisol, and cognitive performance in nondemented subjects: a population-based study. Neurobiol Aging. 2017. March 1;51:1–8. 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.11.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Scott SB, Graham-Engeland JE, Engeland CG, Smyth JM, Almeida DM, Katz MJ, et al. The effects of stress on cognitive aging, physiology and emotion (ESCAPE) project. BMC Psych. 2015. December;15(1):146 10.1186/s12888-015-0497-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Chen E, Miller GE, Lachman ME, Gruenewald TL, Seeman TE. Protective factors for adults from low childhood socioeconomic circumstances: The benefits of shift-and-persist for allostatic load. Psychosom Med. 2012. February;74(2):178 10.1097/PSY.0b013e31824206fd [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Scullin MK, Bliwise DL. Sleep, cognition, and normal aging: integrating a half century of multidisciplinary research. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015. January;10(1):97–137. 10.1177/1745691614556680 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Wilckens KA, Woo SG, Kirk AR, Erickson KI, Wheeler ME. Role of sleep continuity and total sleep time in executive function across the adult lifespan. Psychol Aging. 2014. September;29(3):658 10.1037/a0037234 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Dahlgren A, Kecklund G, Åkerstedt T. Different levels of work-related stress and the effects on sleep, fatigue and cortisol. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2005. August 1:277–85. 10.5271/sjweh.883 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Bernstein RE, Laurent HK, Measelle JR, Hailey BC, Ablow JC. Little tyrants or just plain tired: Evaluating attributions for caregiving outcomes across the transition to parenthood. J Fam Psychol. 2013. December;27(6):851–61. 10.1037/a0034651 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Buckhalt JA, El-Sheikh M, Keller P. Children’s sleep and cognitive functioning: race and socioeconomic status as moderators of effects. Child Dev. 2007. January;78(1):213–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Gellis LA. Children’s sleep in the context of socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity. Sleep and development: Familial and socio-cultural considerations. 2011. February 22:219–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Patrick KE, Millet G, Mindell JA. Sleep differences by race in preschool children: the roles of parenting behaviors and socioeconomic status. Behav Sleep Med. 2016. September 2;14(5):467–79. 10.1080/15402002.2015.1017101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Mindell JA, Sadeh A, Wiegand B, How TH, Goh DY. Cross-cultural differences in infant and toddler sleep. Sleep Med. 2010. March 1;11(3):274–80. 10.1016/j.sleep.2009.04.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Thomas M Olino

10 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-03649

Mother's Sleep Deficits and Cognitive Performance: Moderation by Stress and Age

PLOS ONE

Dear Ms. Chary,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I hope that all of the authors are well in these challenging times.

I was able to secure one review of your manuscript. I thank that reviewer for their constructive feedback on the work. As you will see, there is interest in the work. However, there are some important details that need to be clarified. These include, but are not limited to, the coding of actigraphy, data reduction for the actigraphy, and construction of the index of stress. I also think that the reliance on dichotomizing variables for visualizing interactions does a disservice to understanding the interaction effects. Re-examining the post-hoc tests for the interactions by treating the variables as continuous would be more powerful. Description of simple slopes and/or regions of significance would provide statistically rigorous conclusions.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 25 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Thomas M. Olino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please change "Caucasian” to “White” or “of [Western] European descent” (as appropriate).

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"The study has been funded by Grants MH099437 from the National Institute of Mental Health and HD073202 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"NO The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

4. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript examines the cross-sectional relationships between domains of sleep, chronic stress, and cognitive performance among 227 mothers of 2.5 year-old toddlers. Strengths include the combination of actigraphy and self-report measures to assess sleep, a comprehensive index of stress, behavioral measures of executive functioning, and a heterogeneous sample of mothers with similar-age toddlers. However, there are several concerns regarding the clarity and rationale of study hypotheses, analytic approach, and discussion of study results that temper enthusiasm.

1. The hypotheses are centered on the possibility that sleep and stress may additively supplement or multiplicatively moderate one another. However, it is not clear how the authors tested their first hypothesis of the “additive effects” of stress and sleep. Are the authors referring to the main effects included in Step 1? This approach would test the effects of each predictor (when covarying for the other predictor), whereas adding standardized values of the predictors may better reflect addictive effects if this is the primary hypotheses.

2. Given the cross-sectional study design, it is impossible to know the directionality of the proposed associations and whether cognitive functioning is a predictor of poor sleep, particularly among mothers with more stress. For instance, mothers with poorer cognitive functioning may have more difficulty regulating stress in their lives (particularly when they experience heightened levels), which may contribute to poor sleep. This possibility warrants further discussion.

3. The rationale for age as the moderator of interest related to stress and sleep in predicting cognitive functioning is unclear. As the authors discuss, the ages of mothers with similarly aged toddlers are both (theoretically) linked to cognitive performance and several of the stress indicators (e.g., education, SES). Particularly since the authors do not have clear hypotheses for age, what is the practical or theoretical significance for examining age in these associations? It would be helpful to provide more information highlighting the importance of examining age as a moderator.

4. Similarly, it is surprising that certain factors were not considered or covaried in the present study, such as number of other children in the household and occupation status. This seems particularly likely to contribute to additional parental stressors, difficulty managing role overload, SES, and/or poorer sleep.

5. There is little explanation for why the specific sleep domains of interest were selected and how they may be similarly/differently associated with cognitive performance (particularly in interaction with stress/age). Some of this is discussed later in the manuscript, and would be more helpful in the introduction.

6. Although the cumulative risk index was used in the authors’ prior study, there are several indicators that are more strongly related (e.g., SES, household status, role overload, etc) and on varying time scales (e.g., daily hassles and SES). How is the CRI calculated and has it been validated as a measure of chronic stress with these indices? For instance, it is also surprising that the CBCL externalizing symptoms scale is included.

7. The use of PCA for actigraphic sleep is an interesting approach, and utilizes more of the actigraphic data. However, it is unclear how these latent domains are similar to the widely-used and validated sleep characteristics typically derived from actigraphy?

8. What is the rationale for dichotomizing continuous variables? For instance, age is dichotomized into two groups of under/over 32, which artificially creates two groups. Further, sleep variables are dichotomized into subgroups with low and high sleep activity/timing rather than applying a median split as used for other variables.

9. What was the process for scoring actigraphy? For instance, how did these scoring metrics compare to those reported by Patel and colleagues (2015) to enhance reproducibility of actigraphy scoring?

10. For the daily hassles measure, how was this score computed? Was the stressor weighted by intensity or were these summed for a total of intensity and frequency?

11. How do the norms of cognitive performance tests in the current study compare to those in the general population? Were the cognitive tasks normed for age and gender?

12. How did mothers who were included in the current study compare to those eliminated with missing data? It seems that there are 314 in the prior published study with same sample.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 7;16(1):e0241188. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241188.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 May 2020

Comments from Editor:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

**We have made the necessary changes to section headings, tables, figures, and references.**

2. Please change "Caucasian” to “White” or “of [Western] European descent” (as appropriate).

**We have made this change. The text now reads “Ninety percent of mothers were White, 4% were Hispanic, 3% were African American, 1% were Asian American, and 2% identified as mixed race, American Indian, or other.” See page 9, line 178.

“Also, 90% of the mothers were White, rendering our results less generalizable to non-White samples” See page 24, lines 521-522.**

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"The study has been funded by Grants MH099437 from the National Institute of Mental Health and HD073202 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"NO The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

**We have removed the funding-related text from the Acknowledgements section of the manuscript. Instead, we have added this information to the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.**

4. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.

**We have included tables as part of the main manuscript. See pages 17-20.**

Comments from Reviewer:

1. The hypotheses are centered on the possibility that sleep and stress may additively supplement or multiplicatively moderate one another. However, it is not clear how the authors tested their first hypothesis of the “additive effects” of stress and sleep. Are the authors referring to the main effects included in Step 1? This approach would test the effects of each predictor (when covarying for the other predictor), whereas adding standardized values of the predictors may better reflect addictive effects if this is the primary hypotheses.

**We were referring to the main effects in Step 1. To clarify, we have removed the word “additive” from the manuscript (in multiple locations), including the hypothesis 1 wording. By “additive” we meant whether sleep and stress provided “independent” prediction of multiple predictors; therefore we have replaced “additive” with “independent” throughout the manuscript (to distinguish it from a non-independent “interactive” or “moderation” effect). We also clarified (p. 18, lines 391-394) that we included the products of standardized predictors, to test interaction effects.

2. With the cross-sectional study design, it is impossible to know the directionality of the proposed associations and whether cognitive functioning is a predictor of poor sleep, particularly among mothers with more stress. For instance, mothers with poorer cognitive functioning may have more difficulty regulating stress in their lives (particularly when they experience heightened levels), which may contribute to poor sleep. This possibility warrants further discussion.

**We agree that the cross-sectional design does not allow us to test this hypothesis. We have added the limited scope of analyses with cross-sectional data as a limitation in the discussion (p. 23, lines 511-514), and point out that a different temporal pattern like that suggested by the reviewer, could be operating.**

3. The rationale for age as the moderator of interest related to stress and sleep in predicting cognitive functioning is unclear. As the authors discuss, the ages of mothers with similarly aged toddlers are both (theoretically) linked to cognitive performance and several of the stress indicators (e.g., education, SES). Particularly since the authors do not have clear hypotheses for age, what is the practical or theoretical significance for examining age in these associations? It would be helpful to provide more information highlighting the importance of examining age as a moderator.

**Adding age as a moderator allowed us to examine whether the link between sleep, stress and cognitive performance would operate differently for older vs. younger mothers. Since there is literature showing that age is associated with sleep differences (e.g., declines in slow wave sleep and total duration of sleep; Hall et al., 2015), and because age is associated with differences in parental stress (younger mothers often have less education and financial security; older mothers report less conflict with children and report feeling more competent when dealing with childrearing stress; Barnes 2006; Barnes, Gardiner, Sutcliffe & Melhuis, 2013), adding age as a moderator would allow us to see if the relationship between sleep and stress on cognitive performance was dependent on mother age. We have added this information in the introduction section. See pages 6-7, lines 130-134.**

4. Similarly, it is surprising that certain factors were not considered or covaried in the present study, such as number of other children in the household and occupation status. This seems particularly likely to contribute to additional parental stressors, difficulty managing role overload, SES, and/or poorer sleep.

**In the McQuillan et al 2019 paper we cite, the number of children as well as number of hours worked outside the home were included as covariates in the relationship between stress and parenting. It was found that mothers’ sleep was associated with stress, even with these covariates accounted for, so we did not include it in the stress composite in the current paper. As for occupation status, occupational prestige is included in the Hollingshead SES score that we used for the study. **

5. There is little explanation for why the specific sleep domains of interest were selected and how they may be similarly/differently associated with cognitive performance (particularly in interaction with stress/age). Some of this is discussed later in the manuscript, and would be more helpful in the introduction.

**Most research on sleep effects on cognitive performance have looked at sleep deprivation, i.e., short durations of sleep. There is research showing that aging is related to decreases in total duration of sleep and more nighttime activity during sleep. There is also work showing that daily stress is related to more sleep variability and shorter durations of sleep. We have added these studies to the introduction to rationalize the use of our sleep components. See pages 4-5, lines 84-98).

6. Although the cumulative risk index was used in the authors’ prior study, there are several indicators that are more strongly related (e.g., SES, household status, role overload, etc) and on varying time scales (e.g., daily hassles and SES). How is the CRI calculated and has it been validated as a measure of chronic stress with these indices? For instance, it is also surprising that the CBCL externalizing symptoms scale is included.

**We chose the stressors we used for the CRI because they were comparable to the three domains of the widely-used Parenting Stress Index (Abidin, 1990): feelings of distress, difficult child behavior, and dysfunctional parent-child interactions. Also though there may not be consensus about which stress variables should be included for a cumulative measure of stress, previous research has shown that the precise combination of stressors is not as important compared to the choice to consider risk in aggregate (Sameroff et al., 1993; Evans, Whipple & Li, 2013).

The CBCL was included since there is research showing that mother perceptions of high levels of child aggression can be a significant stressor (Miragoli et al., 2018, Child Abuse & Neglect).**

7. The use of PCA for actigraphic sleep is an interesting approach, and utilizes more of the actigraphic data. However, it is unclear how these latent domains are similar to the widely-used and validated sleep characteristics typically derived from actigraphy?

** Sleep efficiency is one commonly used actigraphy variable used in sleep research. However, we chose not to use it for several reasons. We argue that our composite variables expand on the sleep efficiency variable because they incorporate more information. For example, our sleep activity composite includes the average time awake after sleep onset, the average minute-by-minute activity level, the average number of night awakenings lasting at least five minutes, the average duration of the longest wake episode after sleep onset, and the average percent of active epochs after sleep onset. Notably, in our data, our sleep activity composite is strongly correlated with the actigraphic sleep efficiency variable, r= - 0.94, such that more activity in the night reflects less efficient sleep, as expected.

The sleep timing composite similarly includes more information as it is comprised of average time of midsleep, average time of sleep onset, and average bedtime.

Given the high correlation between the actigraphic indexes, our findings with the sleep composites can be interpreted as findings pertaining to sleep efficiency, but our usage of the composite variable also allows our findings to be interpreted relative to other variables that are commonly used in the sleep literature. Additionally, one issue with using the sleep efficiency variable alone (as pointed out by Meltzer, Montgomery-Downs, Insana, and Walsh, 2012), is that there is little to no consensus in the field about precisely how this variable should be computed. In fact, only about 65% of the studies reviewed by Meltzer and colleagues that used “sleep efficiency” reported how this variable was defined or computed. For sleep efficiency, one could use the ratio of time asleep over the sleep period from sleep onset to offset, or one could use the ratio of time asleep over the down period/period of time in bed from diary reported downtime and uptime. Without consensus in the field, we opted to analyze our data with the more generalizable, but comparable, composite indices. Our four sleep composites—sleep duration, sleep timing, sleep variability, and sleep activity—represent broad dimensions of actigraphy that are often examined in the sleep literature (Meltzer et al., 2012).

Finally, the concern we would have with using only one or two indicators for each of the major sleep dimensions is that they are not as reliable as they could be; making full use of all available data from actigraphy and diaries, addresses this measurement concern.

Published papers that have used our sleep composites include:

1. Staples, A. D., Bates, J. E., Petersen, I. T., McQuillan, M. E., & Hoyniak, C. (2019). Measuring sleep in young children and their mothers: Identifying actigraphic sleep composites. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 43(3), 278-285.

2. Hoyniak, C. P., Bates, J. E., Staples, A. D., Rudasill, K. M., Molfese, D. L., & Molfese, V. J. (2019). Child sleep and socioeconomic context in the development of cognitive abilities in early childhood. Child Development, 90(5), 1718-1737.

3. McQuillan, M. E., Bates, J. E., Staples, A. D., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2019). Maternal stress, sleep, and parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 33(3), 349-359.

4. Chary, M., McQuillan, M. E., Bates, J. E., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2020). Maternal Executive Function and Sleep Interact in the Prediction of Negative Parenting. Behavioral Sleep Medicine, 18(2), 203-216.

5. Hoyniak, C.P., Bates, J.E., McQuillan, M.E., Staples, A.D., Petersen, I. T., Rudasill, K.M., & Molfese, V.J. (2020). Sleep across early childhood: Implications for internalizing and externalizing problems, socioemotional skills, and cognitive and academic abilities in preschool. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13225

6. Hoyniak, C.P., Bates, J. E., McQuillan, M.E., Albert, L. E., Staples, A.D., Molfese, V.J., Rudasill, K.M., & Deater-Deckard, K. (under review). The family context of toddler sleep: Routines, sleep environment, and emotional security induction in the hour before bedtime.

7. McQuillan, M. E., Bates, J. E., Staples, A. D., Hoyniak, C. P., Rudasill, K.M., & Molfese, V. J. (in preparation). Sustained attention across toddlerhood: The roles of language and sleep.

8. Hoyniak, C.P., McQuillan, M.E., Bates, J. E., Staples, A. D., Schwichtenberg, A.J., & Honaker, S.M. (in preparation). Objective and subjective pre-sleep arousal and sleep in early childhood.**

8. What is the rationale for dichotomizing continuous variables? For instance, age is dichotomized into two groups of under/over 32, which artificially creates two groups. Further, sleep variables are dichotomized into subgroups with low and high sleep activity/timing rather than applying a median split as used for other variables.

**Median splits were used for all the variables including sleep to facilitate analysis using ANOVAs, which are simply a special case of the general linear model. We chose to use ANOVAs in order to more simply represent the more complex, higher-order interaction effects.**

9. What was the process for scoring actigraphy? For instance, how did these scoring metrics compare to those reported by Patel and colleagues (2015) to enhance reproducibility of actigraphy scoring?

**Whenever possible, mothers’ sleep diaries were used to inform and enhance data obtained from actigraphs, such as end of rest period. All mother actigraph data were scored with the adult-validated Cole-Kripke algorithm (Cole, Kripke, Gruen, Mullaney, & Gillin, 1992). Periods when the actigraph was not worn or when sleep occurred while moving, such as in a car, were excluded from sleep scoring so that sleep minutes would not be overestimated or underestimated.

Sleep was scored during the period between the diary reported bedtime (or nap time) and the first epoch for which the actigraphic activity count reached 50 and remained above that threshold until the next sleep interval. Minutes asleep while in bed were based on the bedtime reported in the diary and actigraphic measure determined end of sleep. Variables concerning activity and awakenings after sleep onset were based on motion recordings by the actigraph using the zero-crossing mode and a moderate sensitivity threshold, which is the commonly used method in sleep research (Meltzer, Montgomery-Downs, Insana, & Walsh, 2012). A night waking was scored when the activity count was above threshold (50 crossings) for at least five minutes. The actigraph variables considered in this study were consistent with those variables used in prior research with adults (Berger et al., 2008; Meltzer et al., 2012a).**

10. For the daily hassles measure, how was this score computed? Was the stressor weighted by intensity or were these summed for a total of intensity and frequency?

**The Parenting Daily Hassles Questionnaire is comprised of 20 items that yield two subscales: challenging child behavior (7 items) and parenting tasks (8 items). In this paper, we summed the mothers’ ratings of frequency of the eight parenting tasks (1 = never to 4 = constantly; range : 0- 32) as well as her ratings’ of the intensity of the hassle (1 = no hassle to 5 = big hassle; range: 0 – 40) for those eight tasks. Both ratings were summed together for the final score.

We have added this information to the manuscript (p. 11, lines 230-233).**

11. How do the norms of cognitive performance tests in the current study compare to those in the general population? Were the cognitive tasks normed for age and gender?

**For the Shipley test, raw scores were used because mother age was used as a predictor in the equation. Using the age-normed scores would remove the variance due to age in the scores, and also render interpretation of any estimated interaction with age uninterpretable. However, in our sample, for the age-normed scores, M = 105.47, SD = 9.48. This is very close to the population average of 100, SD = 15 (Mason, C. F., & Ganzler, H. (1964). Adult norms for the Shipley Institute of Living Scale and Hooper Visual Organization Test based on age and education. Journal of Gerontology, 19(4), 419-424.)

Also, the mother EF tasks do not have published age norms (although we now include, in the Method section, a note that the distributions on the EF tasks were similar to those of other studies of adult women in community samples, see page 15, lines 322-324). Therefore, we used non-normed scores for both cognitive tasks.**

12. How did mothers who were included in the current study compare to those eliminated with missing data? It seems that there are 314 in the prior published study with same sample.

**The reason the McQuillan 2019 paper has a larger sample is because they used data from a pilot study they conducted separately in Bloomington, IN (this study was done to demonstrate feasibility before the multi-site study began). In that study, mothers did not complete all of the questionnaires used in this study nor did they complete the executive function tasks, so we did not include the pilot study mothers in our analysis.**

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PlosOne_R1.docx

Decision Letter 1

Thomas M Olino

29 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-03649R1

Mother's Sleep Deficits and Cognitive Performance: Moderation by Stress and Age

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chary,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The reviewer who previously reviewed your work read your work again. I thank them for their attention. I also reviewed your responses and new submission. Overall, I see the work stronger I thank them for their attention. I also reviewed your responses and new submission. Overall, I see the work stronger and clearer. The reviewer highlighted several minor areas of attention that appear easily addressable. The reviewer identified an additional sensitivity test that may be of use to further strengthen the conclusions. One point that was raised in my previous comments, as well as by the reviewer, focused on the treatment of age. You make a clear case that there are changes in cognitive function with age. However, there are no strong arguments about when those age differences emerge. Thus, the recommendation to treat age continuously is to enhance the interpretations of the results, more so than to diminish the finding. Relying on a continuous age variable and relying on the Neyman-Johnson technique to identify the age at which simple slopes are significantly different would be extraordinarily helpful for the work and make conclusions even stronger. If results are identical when relying on these alternative analytic methods, a footnote would suffice. However, if the results can speak to the age at which the post hoc relationships differ, that is very important information for the field. This is a critical issue for the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 13 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Thomas M. Olino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Overall, this version of the manuscript is much improved, and I thank the authors for their thoughtful responses to the suggested revisions. I did have some comments and concerns, that if addressed, might strengthen the contribution of this manuscript.

Primary concerns:

1. Dichotomizing age in the current analyses is still a concerning approach for answering the key questions of interest, particularly given that the selected age was based on the median age and not any theoretical reasoning. For example, women who are 30 may be very different than younger mothers at 21 and more similar to mothers who are 32-33 years old. Artificially separating the sample by this age does not provide particularly helpful information towards our understanding of how age impacts mothers’ stress, sleep, and cognitive performance. I strongly advise you to reconsider this approach and its implications.

2. It is surprising that the authors did not control for whether mothers had multiple siblings or include this in the stress variable. It seems likely to be a key factor that could influence parenting stress, role overload, and many of the other aspects of stress.

More minor concerns:

1. Please acknowledge limitations of the methods and measurements of stress, and consider how this might influence results in the discussion.

2. Thank you for clarifying the differences between women in this study and the prior published work. Can you provide information about sample differences between women who had complete data for actigraphy and cognitive performance and those who were excluded from analysis?

3. If the authors are unaware of the descent of participants, the following changes are encouraged: Hispanic/Latinx, African American/Black, 1% were Asian American, and 2% identified as mixed race, American Indian, or other.

4. Throughout the manuscript, please use terms of comparison (e.g., poorer vs poor; higher vs. high, etc), since these comparisons made within the sample and not absolute.

5. In the discussion, please comment on generalizability of the sample given that the sample includes an overwhelming percentage of White mothers compared to other demographic groups.

6. Please consider using the phrase “parenting daily hassles” rather than daily hassles for accuracy.

7. Thank you for providing these references for the use of PCA for the actigraphy data. It may be helpful for readers to also see some of these references; please include key references in the current study.

8. Please remove IQ from the discussion, since this is more generally referred to as EF throughout.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 7;16(1):e0241188. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241188.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


18 Aug 2020

Editor Comments:

One point that was raised in my previous comments, as well as by the reviewer, focused on the treatment of age. You make a clear case that there are changes in cognitive function with age. However, there are no strong arguments about when those age differences emerge. Thus, the recommendation to treat age continuously is to enhance the interpretations of the results, more so than to diminish the finding. Relying on a continuous age variable and relying on the Neyman-Johnson technique to identify the age at which simple slopes are significantly different would be extraordinarily helpful for the work and make conclusions even stronger.

**While age is a continuous variable in our analyses, in this analysis, we were working within the framework of a three-way interaction. Thus, we had to conduct a median split on one of the two moderators (stress and age) in order to interpret the interaction effect between the other three variables. Since parent age was the most distal variable to our analyses, we conducted a median split on age to create two groups of women.

We are not aware of how to run a Neyman-Johnson analysis with a three-way interaction. However, we did use the suggested technique to identify regions of significance in our two-way interactions. We conducted the Neyman-Johnson analysis for two groups- younger mothers and older mothers. The results were very similar to our ANOVA results- the relationship between poor sleep and cognition was negative and significant only for older mothers experiencing high levels of stress. We have included these figures showing the regions of significance for both groups as supplementary figures. We have referenced them in text, see page 19, lines 407- 411.

“Post-hoc analyses showed that the significant difference was for those older mothers who were high on both sleep activity and stressors (see Fig 1). As a check of our results, we also used the Neyman-Johnson method to identify the regions of significance (see Fig 1b and Fig 1c). Results were very similar with both techniques- older mothers had significantly lower performance scores than the other three sub-groups, whose average performance scores were very similar.” **

Reviewer 1 Comments:

Primary concerns:

1. Dichotomizing age in the current analyses is still a concerning approach for answering the key questions of interest, particularly given that the selected age was based on the median age and not any theoretical reasoning. For example, women who are 30 may be very different than younger mothers at 21 and more similar to mothers who are 32-33 years old. Artificially separating the sample by this age does not provide particularly helpful information towards our understanding of how age impacts mothers’ stress, sleep, and cognitive performance. I strongly advise you to reconsider this approach and its implications.

**See response to editor.**

2. It is surprising that the authors did not control for whether mothers had multiple siblings or include this in the stress variable. It seems likely to be a key factor that could influence parenting stress, role overload, and many of the other aspects of stress.

** In the McQuillan et al., 2019 paper we cite, the number of children

was included as a covariate in the relationship between stress and parenting. It

was found that mothers’ sleep was associated with stress, even with this covariate

accounted for, and sleep was associated with parenting, even with this covariate

and stress controlled.**

More minor concerns:

1. Please acknowledge limitations of the methods and measurements of stress, and consider how this might influence results in the discussion.

** We do mention this as a limitation in the discussion section of the current manuscript. On page 24, lines 519-521, the text reads : “Third, the study relied on mother self-report on all measures of stressors, which could result in informant bias, e.g., mothers who had poorer sleep may have been more likely to rate their children more negatively on misbehavior (Bernstein, Laurent, Measelle, Haily & Ablow, 2012). We have added a study that shows mothers with higher rates of fatigue perceive their children’s behavior more negatively, Bernstein, Laurent, Measelle, Hailey & Ablow, 2012.” **

2. Thank you for clarifying the differences between women in this study and the prior published work. Can you provide information about sample differences between women who had complete data for actigraphy and cognitive performance and those who were excluded from analysis?

**We have added this information, namely, that mothers who provided less than 5 nights of actigraphy data and were excluded from analysis (about 9% of the sample), had lower scores on cognitive performance compared to mothers who provided 5 or more days of data. See page 16, lines 359- 361. The text now reads: “Mothers who provided less than 5 nights of data had significantly lower scores on cognitive performance compared to mothers who provided more than 5 nights of data, t(222) = -3.77, p < .001.”**

3. If the authors are unaware of the descent of participants, the following changes are encouraged: Hispanic/Latinx, African American/Black, 1% were Asian American, and 2% identified as mixed race, American Indian, or other.

**We have made this change. See page 9, lines 180-182. The text now reads: “Ninety percent of mothers were White, 4% were Hispanic/Latinx, 3% were African American/Black, 1% were Asian American, and 2% identified as mixed race, American Indian, or other.”**

4. Throughout the manuscript, please use terms of comparison (e.g., poorer vs poor; higher vs. high, etc), since these comparisons made within the sample and not absolute.

**We have made this change in wording throughout the manuscript.**

5. In the discussion, please comment on generalizability of the sample given that the sample includes an overwhelming percentage of White mothers compared to other demographic groups.

** We have mentioned this limitation. See page 24, lines 523-527. The text now reads: “Fourth, in the current sample, 90% of the mothers were White. Since there is some work suggesting that there racial disparities in parent and child sleep [Buckhalt, El-Sheik & Keller, 2007; Gellis, 2011; Patrick, Millet & Mindell, 2016; Mindell, Sadeh, Weigand, How & Goh, 2010], the current results may be less generalizable to non-White samples.”

6. Please consider using the phrase “parenting daily hassles” rather than daily hassles for accuracy.

**We have made this change throughout the manuscript. See page 4, line 71; page 11, line 230; and page 12, line 251.**

7. Thank you for providing these references for the use of PCA for the actigraphy data. It may be helpful for readers to also see some of these references; please include key references in the current study.

**We have included the following references in text and in references**

1) McQuillan ME, Bates JE, Staples AD, Deater-Deckard K. Maternal stress, sleep, and parenting. J Fam Psych. 2019 Feb;33(3):349-59.

2) Staples AD, Bates JE, Petersen IT, McQuillan ME, Hoyniak C. Measuring sleep in young children and their mothers: Identifying actigraphic sleep composites. Int J Behav Dev. 2019 May;43(3):278-85.

8. Please remove IQ from the discussion, since this is more generally referred to as EF throughout.

**We have deleted IQ. See page 23, line 503. The text now reads: “These mothers performed three-quarters of a standard deviation below other groups on tasks measuring cognition.”**

Decision Letter 2

Thomas M Olino

25 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-03649R2

Mother's Sleep Deficits and Cognitive Performance: Moderation by Stress and Age

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chary,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Thank you for your responses. I appreciate the challenges of interpreting three-way interactions when those interactions are based on continuous variables. However, methods are present to visualize and interpret the data without truncating much information. For example, http://www.jeremydawson.co.uk/slopes.htm, https://tomhouslay.com/2014/03/21/understanding-3-way-interactions-between-continuous-variables/, or (perhaps most useful) https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/interactions/vignettes/interactions.html. Frankly, I do not think that the implementation matters; however, to strengthen the conclusions that you are presenting, relying on the data, rather than dichotomizing the continuous predictors.

At a minimum, providing support for the three-way interaction using the continuous variables is necessary. That could provide enough support for the approach taken to visualize the results.

The supplementary file with the full dataset is very helpful. However, some identification of the continuous and dichotomous variables used in the main analyses would be critical for the spirit of data sharing and transparency.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 09 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Thomas M. Olino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 7;16(1):e0241188. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241188.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


7 Oct 2020

Editor Comments:

1) I appreciate the challenges of interpreting three-way interactions when those interactions are based on continuous variables. However, methods are present to visualize and interpret the data without truncating much information. For example, http://www.jeremydawson.co.uk/slopes.htm, https://tomhouslay.com/2014/03/21/understanding-3-way-interactions-between-continuous-variables/, or (perhaps most useful) https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/interactions/vignettes/interactions.html. Frankly, I do not think that the implementation matters; however, to strengthen the conclusions that you are presenting, relying on the data, rather than dichotomizing the continuous predictors.

At a minimum, providing support for the three-way interaction using the continuous variables is necessary. That could provide enough support for the approach taken to visualize the results.

**We appreciate the editor’s emphasis on using continuous variables wherever possible. However, there are a few reasons why we were unable to use this method for our analyses:

a) While there are certainly templates online (such as the links provided by the editor) to visualize 3-way interactions, all of the formats dichotomize at least one of the moderators into two groups and graph out the interaction effect between the continuous independent variable and the continuous dependent variable as a function of the continuous proximal moderator. There is no way that we know of that allows us to present a graph with all three of the variables remaining continuous. As quoted on the DataScience website regarding graphing interaction effects, “Three-way interactions between continuous variables create a 4D surface between all continuous variables and the response variable. [sic] Human mind cannot grasp 4D surface so we have to rely on simplifications (similar in ways to what can be done for two-way interactions) to explore three-way interactions."

b) The other reason why we chose to not use the templates provided in this review is because in a previous review letter, the editor had suggested using the Johnson-Neyman technique to identify regions of significance in interaction effects. This technique is the most robust method to leverage the value of continuous variables. In the graphs (figures 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b) the lines represent the effect size of the relationship between the independent and dependent variable at various levels of the moderator. This way, instead of examining just the means as one would with a categorical variable, we are taking into account how the association between the two continuous variables changes along values of the continuous moderator.

In sum, we agree with the editor that we need to leverage the value of continuous variables. Upon further reflection, we agree that the Johnson-Neyman technique is thus far, the most accurate and rigorous way to probe the post-hoc analyses of a three-way interaction. Thus, we have chosen to re-analyze all of the interaction effects using this method as opposed to the ANOVA we had previously used. We found that the pattern of results remained the same when using the Johnson-Neyman plots for sleep activity. For sleep timing however, there was a change in which regions were significant. We find now that sleep timing interacts with stress and age on cognition only among younger women. The results are explained in detail in our results section (see page 19) and our discussion (see pages 21-22).**

2) The supplementary file with the full dataset is very helpful. However, some identification of the continuous and dichotomous variables used in the main analyses would be critical for the spirit of data sharing and transparency.

**We have attached a dataset that only includes the variables used in this paper. The column “Label” explains what each variable is.**

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PLosOne_R3.docx

Decision Letter 3

Thomas M Olino

12 Oct 2020

Mother's Sleep Deficits and Cognitive Performance: Moderation by Stress and Age

PONE-D-20-03649R3

Dear Dr. Chary,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Thomas M. Olino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I appreciate the use of the J-N method to clarify the interaction effects found. Thank you for your contribution!

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Thomas M Olino

14 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-03649R3

Mothers’ Sleep Deficits and Cognitive Performance: Moderation by Stress and Age

Dear Dr. Chary:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Thomas M. Olino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Dataset

    (SAV)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PlosOne_R1.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PLosOne_R3.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES