Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 28
28
120
100
Average PVT Lapses in Last 24 Hours
of Second 36-Hour Sleep Deprivation
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Average PVT Lapses in Last 24 Hours
of First 36-Hour Sleep Deprivation
Figure 13. Scatter plot showing large variations in vigilance (alertness)
among 18 sleep deprivation subjects, but high similarities between individuals'
performance during the first and second sleep deprivation periods.
(SOURCE: Van Dongen et al. 2004)
scores for the 18 subjects. Only one of the 18 subjects per- ceptibility to drowsiness. This was illustrated by the FHWA-
formed substantially differently across the two sessions, and sponsored DFAS and by a study of fatigue associated with the
many subjects performed almost identically. use of sleeper berths. Studies have shown that humans are gen-
A factor analysis of scores on the 13 neurobiological mea- erally not very good judges of their own levels of sleepiness, but
sures revealed three common personal factors underlying the there are even large individual differences in the accuracy of
score differences: self-evaluation (sleepiness and mood), self-assessment. Variations of amount of nightly sleep are one
cognitive processing (ability to engage in complex thinking), obvious source of individual differences in alertness, but sig-
and vigilance (behavioral alertness). Intuitively, one would nificant differences are seen even when subjects receive con-
predict that hours of sleep deprivation would be a stronger trolled amounts of sleep. Moreover, a person's ability to stay
predictor of subject performance than individual differences, awake and perform during sleep deprivation seems to be
but this was not the case. On every measure, the influence of remarkably consistent over time, even though there are large
individual differences was stronger than the influence of sleep differences among different people.
deprivation duration. The authors summarized their study
findings as follows:
4.7 PERSONALITY
In this study involving repeated exposure to sleep deprivation
under carefully controlled laboratory conditions, we found In the present context, "personality" refers to enduring per-
that neurobehavioral impairment from sleep loss was sig- sonal traits or tendencies that affect behavior. Personality is
nificantly different among individuals, stable within indi- most often viewed in relation to interpersonal interaction
viduals, and robust relative to experimental manipulation of (e.g., introversion-extroversion), but personality traits can
sleep history. Thus, this study is the first to demonstrate that
inter-individual differences in neurobehavioral deficits from also be associated with driving and other safety-related
sleep loss constitute a differential vulnerability trait (Van behaviors. In the survey, personality traits such as aggres-
Dongen et al. 2004). siveness, impulsivity, and inattentiveness were rated by both
respondent groups as having the highest associations with
In summary, it appears that there are significant individual risk of the various factors listed, which included demographic,
differences among commercial drivers in the incidence and sus- experience, personal/family, and medical factors. Corsi and
