Assessment of the unified model of performance: accuracy of group-average and individualised alertness predictions

When to sleep and consume caffeine to boost alertness

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Sleep loss can cause cognitive impairments that increase the risk of mistakes and accidents. However, existing guidelines to counteract the effects of sleep loss are generic and are not designed to address individual-specific conditions, leading to suboptimal alertness levels. Here, we developed an optimization algorithm that automatically identifies sleep schedules and caffeine-dosing strategies to minimize alertness impairment due to sleep loss for desired times of the day.

METHODS

We combined our previous algorithms that separately optimize sleep or caffeine to simultaneously identify the best sleep schedules and caffeine doses that minimize alertness impairment at desired times. The optimization algorithm uses the predictions of the well-validated Unified Model of Performance to estimate the effectiveness and physiological feasibility of a large number of possible solutions and identify the best one. To assess the optimization algorithm, we used it to identify the best sleep schedules and caffeine-dosing strategies for four studies that exemplify common sleep-loss conditions and compared the predicted alertness-impairment reduction achieved by using the algorithm's recommendations against that achieved by following the U.S. Army caffeine guidelines.

RESULTS

Compared to the alertness-impairment levels in the original studies, the algorithm's recommendations reduced alertness impairment on average by 63%, an improvement of 24 percentage points over the U.S. Army caffeine guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide an optimization algorithm that simultaneously identifies effective and safe sleep schedules and caffeine-dosing strategies to minimize alertness impairment at user-specified times.

Estimating vigilance from the pre-work shift sleep using an under-mattress sleep sensor

Predicting vigilance impairment in high-risk shift work occupations is critical to help to reduce workplace errors and accidents. Current methods rely on multi-night, often manually entered, sleep data. This study developed a machine learning model for predicting vigilance errors based on a single prior sleep period, derived from an under-mattress sensor. Twenty-four healthy volunteers (mean [SD] age = 27.6 [9.5] years, 12 male) attended the laboratory on two separate occasions, 1 month apart, to compare wake performance and sleep under two different lighting conditions. Each condition occurred over an 8 day protocol comprising a baseline sleep opportunity from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., a 27 h wake period, then daytime sleep opportunities from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. on days 3-7. From 12 a.m. to 8 a.m. on each of days 4-7, participants completed simulated night shifts that included six 10 min psychomotor vigilance task (PVT) trials per shift. Sleep was assessed using an under-mattress sensor. Using extra-trees machine learning models, PVT performance (reaction times <500 ms, reaction, and lapses) during each night shift was predicted based on the preceding daytime sleep. The final extra-trees model demonstrated moderate accuracy for predicting PVT performance, with standard errors (RMSE) of 19.9 ms (reaction time, 359 [41.6]ms), 0.42 reactions/s (reaction speed, 2.5 [0.6] reactions/s), and 7.2 (lapses, 10.5 [12.3]). The model also correctly classified 84% of trials containing ≥5 lapses (Matthews correlation coefficient = 0.59, F1 = 0.83). Model performance is comparable to current fatigue prediction models that rely upon self-report or manually entered data. This efficient approach may help to manage fatigue and safety in non-standard work schedules.

Can we rely on wearable sleep-tracker devices for fatigue management?

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Wearable sleep-tracker devices are ubiquitously used to measure sleep; however, the estimated sleep parameters often differ from the gold-standard polysomnography (PSG). It is unclear to what extent we can tolerate these errors within the context of a particular clinical or operational application. Here, we sought to develop a method to quantitatively determine whether a sleep tracker yields acceptable sleep-parameter estimates for assessing alertness impairment.

METHODS

Using literature data, we characterized sleep-measurement errors of 18 unique sleep-tracker devices with respect to PSG. Then, using predictions based on the unified model of performance, we compared the temporal variation of alertness in terms of the psychomotor vigilance test mean response time for simulations with and without added PSG-device sleep-measurement errors, for nominal schedules of 5, 8, or 9 hours of sleep/night or an irregular sleep schedule each night for 30 consecutive days. Finally, we deemed a device error acceptable when the predicted differences were smaller than the within-subject variability of 30 milliseconds. We also established the capability to estimate the extent to which a specific sleep-tracker device meets this acceptance criterion.

RESULTS

On average, the 18 sleep-tracker devices overestimated sleep duration by 19 (standard deviation = 44) minutes. Using these errors for 30 consecutive days, we found that, regardless of sleep schedule, in nearly 80% of the time the resulting predicted alertness differences were smaller than 30 milliseconds.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide a method to quantitatively determine whether a sleep-tracker device produces sleep measurements that are operationally acceptable for fatigue management.