Skip to main content
. 2022 Jun 6;11:e69308. doi: 10.7554/eLife.69308

Figure 5. Impact of sleep deprivation on sequence learning, working memory, and attention.

(a) The reaction time (RT) difference of block (BL) 6–5 (learning acquisition) and BL 6–7 (learning retention) was significant only after sufficient sleep (BL 6–5: t=3.73, p<0.001; BL 6–7: t=2.95, p=0.003) but not sleep deprivation (BL 6–5: t=1.67, p=0.094; BL 6–7: t=0.95, p=0.337).( b) Performance was more erroneous after sleep deprivation. Asterisks (*) represent significant differences between learning block RTs (BL 6–5, BL 6–7). n=30.(c) For both P3 and C2 electrodes, the P300 amplitude (250–500 ms) was significantly larger in block 6 vs BL5 and 7 only after sufficient sleep (P3: t6-5=3.50, p<0.001, t6-7=3.30, p=0.003; C2: t6-5=2.74, p=0.010, t6-7=2.64, p=0.013) marked by the filled symbol. n=30. (d) Participants had more correct responses (t=3.56, p<0.001) and a higher d index (t=3.43, p=0.002) after having sufficient sleep vs sleep deprivation. (e) Performance speed was not significantly different but was more variable after sufficient sleep. n=30. (f) The P300 amplitude (300–600 ms) did not significantly differ across sleep conditions at electrodes Fz, Pz, and Cz. n=29. (g) RT of the congruent, incongruent, and overall trials in the Stroop task was significantly slower after sleep deprivation. (h) Participants displayed a significantly stronger Stroop interference effect (RTincongruent-RTcongruent) after sleep deprivation vs sufficient sleep (t=2.63, p=0.009). n=29. (i) The N200 (200–300 ms) at electrode Fz was significantly larger for incongruent trials, but not congruent trials, after sufficient sleep vs sleep deprivation. Both N200 and N450 (400–550 ms) were significantly larger for incongruent vs congruent trials only after sufficient sleep. (j,k) Participants were less accurate in identifying AX trials (t=5.30, p<0.001), had slower RT (t=3.29, p=0.003), and showed a larger variability of RT (t=3.13, p=0.004) after sleep deprivation vs sufficient sleep. (l) The P300 (300–600 ms) amplitude was significantly larger after sufficient sleep at electrodes Fz and Cz. n=27. All pairwise comparisons were calculated via post hoc Student’s t-tests (paired, p<0.05). Error bars represent s.e.m. ns: nonsignificant; Asterisks (*) indicate significant differences. Boxes indicate interquartile range that contains 50% of values (25th–75th) and whiskers show 1st–99th percentiles. See also Figure S1-S3.

Figure 5.

Figure 5—figure supplement 1. The impact of sleep deprivation on motor learning performance.

Figure 5—figure supplement 1.

(a) Block (BL) 5–6 absolute reaction time (RT) difference represents sequence learning and was significant only after sufficient sleep (t=2.78, p=0.005) but not sleep deprivation (t=1.47, p=0.141). The BL 6–7 RT difference represents learning retention and was again significant only after sufficient sleep (t=2.16, p=0.031) but not sleep deprivation (t=0.86, p=0.392). Asterisks (*) represent statistically significant differences between learning blocks RT (BL 6–5, BL 6–7). The brackets refer to RT difference between blocks 6 vs 5 and 6 vs 7. (b) After sleep deprivation, participants committed more errors at block 6 compared to block 5 (t=2.38, p=0.024) but not 7 (t=0.70, p=0.489). (c), Block-specific error rate was, however, significantly higher after sleep deprivation in BL 6 (t=3.80, p<0.001), 7 (t=3.12, p=0.004), and also BL 4 (t=2.41, p=0.022) and 8 (t=3.09, p=0.004), as compared to the sufficient sleep condition. (d), Participants showed higher RT variability after sleep deprivation, in all learning blocks including block 5 (t=3.17, p=0.004), block 6 (t=4.43, p<0.001), and block 7 (t=3.89, p<0.001). All pairwise comparisons are calculated using post hoc Student’s t-tests (paired, p<0.05). n=30. Error bars represent s.e.m. Asterisks (*) indicate significant differences.
Figure 5—figure supplement 2. P300 amplitudes of electrodes C1, C2, P1, and P2 during motor sequence learning across sleep conditions.

Figure 5—figure supplement 2.

For electrode C1, there was no significant difference between learning blocks across sleep conditions. However, between-condition comparisons show significantly larger P300 amplitudes in all learning blocks after sufficient sleep compared to sleep deprivation. For electrode C2, pairwise comparisons show a significantly larger P300 amplitude in block 6 compared to blocks 5 and 7 only after sufficient sleep as compared to sleep deprivation. Between-condition comparisons of respective blocks show a significantly higher P300 amplitude at blocks 6 and 7 in the sufficient sleep condition. For electrode P1, there was no significant difference between individual learning blocks across sleep conditions (i.e. sufficient sleep vs sleep deprivation). However, within-condition comparisons show a significantly higher P300 amplitude in block 6 vs 5 and block 6 vs 7 only after sufficient sleep. The same pattern of response was found for electrode P2. All pairwise comparisons are calculated using post hoc t-tests (paired, p<0.05). n=30. (*/ns) indicates significant/nonsignificant differences between each block across sleep conditions. Filled symbols represent significant differences between BL 6–5 and BL 6–7. ns: nonsignificant.
Figure 5—figure supplement 3. The impact of sleep deprivation on Stroop accuracy.

Figure 5—figure supplement 3.

(a) Participants had less correct responses in overall trials of the Stroop stage (t=2.51, p=0.018), incongruent trials (t=2.30, p=0.029) and congruent trials (t=2.18, p=0.037) after sleep deprivation compared to sufficient sleep. n=29. (b) N200 and N450 ERP components of Stroop task performance across sleep conditions for electrode Cz. The N200 component was significantly larger for the incongruent trials, but not congruent trials, after sufficient sleep vs sleep deprivation for the electrodes Cz (t=3.51, p=0.002). The N450 did not significantly differ during incongruent vs congruent trials across sleep sessions. n=28. (c) The P300 amplitude was significantly larger after sufficient sleep at electrodes F3 (t=2.18, p=0.038), F4 (t=2.66, p=0.013), C3 (t=4.93, p<0.001), and C4 (t=2.75, p=0.011). The temporal window of 250–650 ms including the P300 amplitude (300–600 ms). n=27. Error bars represent s.e.m. ns: nonsignificant; Asterisks (*) indicate significant differences. All pairwise comparisons were calculated via post hoc Student’s t-tests (paired, p<0.05).