Skip to main content
. 2021 Sep 3;45(3):zsab225. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsab225

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

E2 decreased PSD in AL sleep and SD recovery sleep. (A) PSD of the first 6 h of AL-NREM sleep. In AL sleep, analysis of the spectral power distribution from Zt 0 to 6 for NREM sleep revealed that E2 treatment significantly decreased the spectral distribution compared with oil treatment (repeated measure two-way ANOVA; main effect of E2: F(1,553) = 27.87, ****p < 0.0001; main effect of frequency: F(78,553) = 17.93, ****p < 0.0001 and interaction between E2 and Hz: F(78,553) = 4.263, ****p < 0.0001). (Inset) A multiple comparison post hoc test further revealed that the significant differences were limited to the lower delta frequency range of 0.5–3 Hz (Šídák correction for multiple comparisons; **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.005; see Supplemental Table S3 for adjusted p values and confidence intervals). Data are the mean + SEM. (B) PSD of the 6 h SD recovery sleep. In SD recovery sleep, analysis of the spectral power distribution from Zt 6 to 12 for NREM sleep revealed that E2 treatment significantly decreased the spectral distribution compared with oil treatment (repeated measure two-way ANOVA; main effect of E2: F(1,553) = 59.46, ****p < 0.0001; main effect of frequency: F(78,553) = 17.82, ****p < 0.0001 and interaction between E2 and frequency: F(78,553) = 1.370, ****p < 0.025). (Inset) A multiple comparison post hoc test further revealed that the significant differences were limited to the lower delta frequency range of 0.75–2 Hz (Šídák correction for multiple comparisons; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.005; see Supplemental Table S3 for adjusted p values and confidence intervals).