Sleep is important for optimal cognitive functioning across the lifespan. Among older adults (≥55 years), self-reported short and long sleep durations have been repeatedly, albeit inconsistently, reported to elevate the risk for poor cognitive function. This meta-analytic review quantitatively summarizes the risk for poorer cognitive function among short and long sleepers in older adults. Eligible publications were searched online and manually. A total of 35 independent samples (N = 97,264) from 11 cross-sectional and seven prospective cohort studies were included. Pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived using random-effects models. Self-reported short and long sleep increased the odds for poor cognitive function by 1.40 (CI = 1.27-1.56) and 1.58 times (CI = 1.43-1.74), respectively. Effect sizes varied across studies and may have been moderated by both study type (cross-sectional and prospective) and cognitive domain assessed. For cross-sectional studies, extreme sleep durations were significantly associated with poorer multiple-domain performance, executive functions, verbal memory, and working memory capacity. Prospective cohort studies revealed the significant long-term impact of short and long sleep on multiple-domain performance only. These findings establish self-reported extreme sleep duration as a risk factor for cognitive aging.

Cognitive performance deteriorates during extended wakefulness and circadian phase misalignment, and some individuals are more affected than others. Whether performance is affected similarly across cognitive domains, or whether cognitive processes involving Executive Functions are more sensitive to sleep and circadian misalignment than Alertness and Sustained Attention, is a matter of debate. We conducted a 2 × 12-day laboratory protocol to characterize the interaction of repeated partial and acute total sleep deprivation and circadian phase on performance across seven cognitive domains in 36 individuals (18 males; mean ± SD of age = 27.6±4.0 years). The sample was stratified for the rs57875989 polymorphism in PER3, which confers cognitive susceptibility to total sleep deprivation. We observed a deterioration of performance during both repeated partial and acute total sleep deprivation. Furthermore, prior partial sleep deprivation led to poorer cognitive performance in a subsequent total sleep deprivation period, but its effect was modulated by circadian phase such that it was virtually absent in the evening wake maintenance zone, and most prominent during early morning hours. A significant effect of PER3 genotype was observed for Subjective Alertness during partial sleep deprivation and on n-back tasks with a high executive load when assessed in the morning hours during total sleep deprivation after partial sleep loss. Overall, however, Subjective Alertness and Sustained Attention were more affected by both partial and total sleep deprivation than other cognitive domains and tasks including n-back tasks of Working Memory, even when implemented with a high executive load. Sleep loss has a primary effect on Sleepiness and Sustained Attention with much smaller effects on challenging Working Memory tasks. These findings have implications for understanding how sleep debt and circadian rhythmicity interact to determine waking performance across cognitive domains and individuals.

Significance: Circadian rhythms affect our physiology and psychology, in health and disease. Most of our knowledge about the human circadian timing system is based on research in men. Some circadian characteristics, such as the intrinsic frequency of the circadian clock and the amplitude of the melatonin rhythm, have been shown to differ between men and women. Whether the circadian regulation of mental functions differs between men and women is unknown. Here we show that circadian rhythmicity in mental functions exhibits sex differences so that the night-time impairment in cognitive performance is greater in women than in men. These findings are significant in view of shift-work–related cognitive deficits and disturbances of mood, which are more prevalent in women.

To investigate whether age-related and experimental reductions in SWS and sleep continuity are associated with increased daytime sleep propensity. Assessment of daytime sleep propensity under baseline conditions and following experimental disruption of SWS. Healthy young (20–30 y, n = 44), middle-aged (40–55 y, n = 35) and older (66–83 y, n = 31) men and women, completed a 2-way parallel group study. After an 8-h baseline sleep episode, subjects were randomized to 2 nights with selective SWS disruption by acoustic stimuli, or without disruption, followed by 1 recovery night. Objective and subjective sleep propensity were assessed using the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT) and the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS). During baseline sleep, SWS decreased (P < 0.001) and the number of awakenings increased (P < 0.001) across the 3 age groups. During the baseline day, MSLT values increased across the three age groups (P < 0.0001) with mean values of 8.7min (SD: 4.5), 11.7 (5.1) and 14.2 (4.1) in the young, middle-aged, and older adults, respectively. KSS values were 3.7 (1.0), 3.2 (0.9), and 3.4 (0.6) (age-group: P = 0.031). Two nights of SWS disruption led to a reduction in MSLT and increase in KSS in all 3 age groups (SWS disruption vs. control: P < 0.05 in all cases). Healthy aging is associated with a reduction in daytime sleep propensity, sleep continuity, and SWS. In contrast, experimental disruption of SWS leads to an increase in daytime sleep propensity. The age-related decline in SWS and reduction in daytime sleep propensity may reflect a lessening in homeostatic sleep requirement. Healthy older adults without sleep disorders can expect to be less sleepy during the daytime than young adults.

Selective attention allows us to ignore what is task-irrelevant and focus on what is task-relevant. The cognitive and neural mechanisms that underlie this process are key topics of investigation in cognitive psychology. One of the more prominent theories of attention is perceptual load theory, which suggests that the efficiency of selective attention is dependent on both perceptual and cognitive load. It is now more than 20 years since the proposal of load theory, and it is a good time to evaluate the evidence in support of this influential model. The present article supplements and extends previous reviews (Lavie, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75-82. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004 , 2005, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 143-148. doi: 10.1177/0963721410370295 , 2010) by examining more recent research in what appears to be a rapidly expanding area. The article comprises five parts, examining (1) evidence for the effects of perceptual load on attention, (2) cognitive load, (3) individual differences under load, (4) alternative theories and criticisms, and (5) the future of load theory. We argue that the key next step for load theory will be the application of the model to real-world tasks. The potential benefits of applied attention research are numerous, and there is tentative evidence that applied research would provide strong support for the theory itself, as well as real-world benefits related to activities in which attention is crucial, such as driving and education.