While light is considered the dominant stimulus for entraining (synchronizing) mammalian circadian rhythms to local environmental time, social stimuli are also widely cited as‘zeitgebers’(time‐cues). This review critically assesses the evidence for social influences on mammalian circadian rhythms, and possible mechanisms of action. Social stimuli may affect circadian behavioural programmes by regulating the phase and period of circadian clocks (i.e. a zeitgeber action, either direct or by conditioning to photic zeitgebers), by influencing daily patterns of light exposure or modulating light input to the clock, or by associative learning processes that utilize circadian time as a discriminative or conditioned stimulus. There is good evidence that social stimuli can act as zeitgebers. In several species maternal signals are the primary zeitgeber in utero and prior to weaning. Adults of some species can also be phase shifted or entrained by single or periodic social interactions, but these effects are often weak, and appear to be mediated by social stimulation of arousal. There is no strong evidence yet for sensory‐specific nonphotic inputs to the clock. The circadian phase‐dependence of clock resetting to social stimuli or arousal (the‘nonphotic’phase response curve, PRC), where known, is distinct from that to light and similar in diurnal and nocturnal animals. There is some evidence that induction of arousal can modulate light input to the clock, but no studies yet of whether social stimuli can shift the clock by conditioning to photic cues, or be incorporated into the circadian programme by associative learning. In humans, social zeitgebers appear weak by comparison with light. In temporal isolation or under weak light‐dark cycles, humans may ignore social cues and free‐run independently, although cases of mutual synchrony among two or more group‐housed individuals have been reported. Social cues may affect circadian timing by controlling sleep‐wake states, but the phase of entrainment observed to fixed sleep‐wake schedules in dim light is consistent with photic mediation (scheduled variations in behavioural state necessarily create daily light‐dark cycles unless subjects are housed in constant dark or have no eyes). By contrast, discrete exercise sessions can induce phase shifts consistent with the nonphotic PRC observed in animal studies. The best evidence for social entrainment in humans is from a few totally blind subjects who synchronize to the 24 h day, or to near‐24 h sleep‐wake schedules under laboratory conditions. However, the critical entraining stimuli have not yet been identified, and there are no reported cases yet of social entrainment in bilaterally enucleated blind subjects. The role of social zeitgebers in mammalian behavioural ecology, their mechanisms of action, and their utility for manipulating circadian rhythms in humans, remains to be more fully elaborated.

Although light is accepted as the dominant zeitgeber for entrainment of the human circadian system, there is evidence that nonphotic stimuli may play a role. This review critically assesses the current evidence in support of nonphotic entrainment in humans. Studies involving manipulations of sleep-wake schedules, exercise, mealtimes, and social stimuli are re-examined, bearing in mind the fact that the human circadian clock is sensitive to very dim light and has a free-running period very close to 24 h. Because of light confounds, the study of totally blind subjects with free-running circadian rhythms represents the ideal model to investigate the effects of nonphotic stimuli on circadian phase and period. Strong support for nonphotic entrainment in humans has already come from the study of a few blind subjects with entrained circadian rhythms. However, in these studies the nonphotic stimulus(i) responsible was not identified. The effect of appropriately timed exercise or exogenous melatonin represents the best proof to date of an effect of nonphotic stimuli on human circadian timing. Phase-response curves for both exercise and melatonin have been constructed. Given the powerful effect of feeding as a circadian zeitgeber in various nonhuman species, studies of meal timing are recommended. In conclusion, the available evidence indicates that it remains worthwhile to continue to study nonphotic effects on human circadian timing to identify treatment strategies for shift workers and transmeridian travelers as well as for the blind and possibly the elderly.

Circadian rhythms in several species can be phase-shifted by procedures that stimulate locomotor activity (“exercise”) during the usual sleep period. The role of arousal or sleep loss, independent of activity, in this effect has not been adequately resolved. We show here, using the sleep deprivation procedure of gentle handling, that comparably large phase shifts (up to 240 min advances) of the rest–activity cycle can be induced in Syrian hamsters by 3 hr of behavioral arousal, with minimal locomotion, beginning 6 hr before the usual active period. Horizontal distance traveled during the deprivation procedure averaged ∼0.08 km, compared to 2.5 km typical in exercise studies. Hamsters requiring fewer interventions exhibited larger shifts, suggesting that the level or continuity of spontaneous arousal determines shift size. The circadian rhythm of light-induced c-fos expression in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) was used as a phase marker to further demonstrate that the clock is reset within 1 hr after a 3 hr deprivation. Sleep deprivation mimicked the effects of exercise on basal c-fos expression in two components of the circadian system, suppressing basal Fos immunoreactivity in the SCN, and increasing Fos in the intergeniculate leaflet. Sleep deprivation without exercise in hamsters can rapidly reset the circadian clock and alter gene expression within the circadian system.