Talk:Sleep

People who never sleep?

Hello there,

I've heard about cases such this one: http://www.thanhniennews.com/features/?catid=10&newsid=12673 numerous times and never found any explanation. It seems that a human being can be deprived from sleep for years with no obvious health impact. The case above mentions a 'fever' as a reason for this long-running insomnia. I have also heard about such cases caused by head trauma. It also has been described in fiction (i.g. 'The Watchers and the Watched' by Sid Chaplin if I am not mistaken). So what do you think?

I've also heard that sleep deprivation may be used to heal some depressions. But can't find any sustainable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.58.134.193 (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There are people who sleep very little, but to my knowledge no cases of people who never sleep at all have been scientifically verified by EEG study in a sleep lab -- these are just stories as far as I know. The effect of sleep deprivation on depression is very well established. This isn't commonly used as a treatment because the depression tends to return quickly once the patient is no longer sleep-deprived. However, one of the clearest effects of antidepressant drugs (SSRIs) is to alter sleep patterns, especially by reducing REM sleep. Our articles unfortunately don't cover this material very well, but if you search on Google Scholar for "depression sleep" you'll find tons of relevant stuff. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

According to this book: Sleep deprivation, Kushida, Clete Anthony, publisher = Informa Health Care, 2005, ISBN 0824759494,

http://books.google.com/books?id=EaGWMXsR5XYC&pg=PA183&dq=isbn=0824759494&ei=3nAxStaFEIXkywScxajyBQ#PPA2,M1

microsleeps are inevitable and even though a person may not be aware of them, they can add up to an appreciable amount of sleep. - Hordaland (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Aparently Don Van Vliet stayed awake for two years once...79.78.62.102 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of text - explained

I've removed this recently-added text: "Most humans average 7.6 hours of sleep a night; some people get by on an incredible 15 to 30 minutes. Others may need as much as 11 hours." which was cited to Psychology In Action, Eighth Edition, Huffman, Karen (2007), page 173.

"Most humans" is very general & how would one know, worldwide? Also, the average amt of sleep for all humans is uninteresting, as age plays such a big role. The assertion that "some people get by on an incredible 15 to 30 minutes," aside from the hardly encyclopedic "incredible", requires a better source than an entry-level psych textbook which, btw, has been criticized for being too US-centric. Needing "as much as 11 hours" is hardly a lot, as infants may need 18. Either the textbook is uncarefully written or the citing of it is. - Hordaland (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree to your removal, the 15 minutes is really hardly believable. Maybe it was supposed to mean "at once" (but multiple times a day). Someone requiring 15 mins of sleep per day in the long term is ... well, interesting ;-) --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 13:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Waking up

'Waking up' redirects to this page, however there is no specific information about the physiological and psychological processes of waking up anywhere on the page. Should this be added as a section? --90.198.9.109 (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting proposal. Surely there must have been research specifically on waking up, though I don't recall seeing anything that narrow. There's been some lately about how different chronotypes function and feel upon waking and throu the day. For example, here. See also sleep inertia and wakefulness. But what/how exactly is the process of waking up? - Hordaland (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a tremendous amount of information on this -- PMID 12531132 is the best source I can find. Looie496 (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fumes which awake you 100 %

Is there an "alarm clock" which has a harmless liquid (or gaseous) substance inside which - when released as fume (or gas) at preset time - immediately awakes you fully.

Substance which affects central nervous system when it enters bloodstream trough lungs. Substance which simply MUST affect you that way at a chemical level - removing whatever makes you sleepy and delirious - sort-of an antidote (a "sleep detoxification"); so in a matter of seconds you are fully aware just as you are in the middle of the day and you simply get up.

The place to ask questions that aren't related to improving an article is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is Stage N4?

I think this is a question someone has added to the article rather than a part of the article, so I've moved Where is Stage N4? from the article to here. ϢereSpielChequers 13:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This question comes up so often that the article probably ought to address it explicitly. Looie496 (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The article already says "...resulted in several changes, the most significant being the combination of stages 3 and 4 into Stage N3. The revised scoring was published in 2007 as The AASM Manual for the Scoring of Sleep and Associated Events. - Hordaland (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think 30 days is too short given the activity level here -- I'd suggest at least two months and perhaps even six months. With that caveat, I'd say go for it. Looie496 (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Basis of phenomena

What if being awake is the phenomena and sleep is what we truly are? --Jay(Talk) 16:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This page should only be used for discussing possible ways to improve the sleep article. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Hours by age" chart

I've got a serious problem with even including this chart. It's based on a single 'source,' which is an internet article written by 4 authors, none considered an international expert in sleep research. There is NO research, not 1 citation, presented to support the "average" sleep #'s presented; it is all anecdotal. (In fact, average world adult sleep appears to be more like 6.5-7.5 hrs. according to a few studies I quickly found. Presentation of this single, unsourced chart on the Wiki page makes it appear to be "the" authoritative chart of optimal/average sleep for all ages. And people might rely on this chart to make lifestyle changes and/or child-rearing choices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.70.117 (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Natural versus cultural

Sleep = stated as natural, however sleep is cultural defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.194.101.121 (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you justify that statement on the basis of anything that has been published? Looie496 (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sleep in non-humans

I propose that the the phrase "lower order animals" in the "sleep in non-humans" section be removed. There's no such thing as "lower" animals, scientifically speaking. Not even insects can scientifically or factually be referred to as "lower animals." There are humans and non-humans. When people say "more evolved" or "lower animals," Darwin wakes up in his grave and sheds a wee little tear. Askantik (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. The phrase bothers me too. How to define lower-order: animals who can't even fly nor navigate as well as bees, for example?

(-; Hordaland (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Genetics Section needs improvement or removal

I just made an edit to that section. It was/is poor. There in no real info there. It sited examples as fact, when they clearly where not to be presented that way.

The source is terrible, just a "by line" really. it was written in 2009 about a study completed in 2001 with a factoid about insomnia statistics from 2006 to keep it from being too dated.

Also the inclusion of the specific gene, not sited BTW, is irrelevant to the article unless this section becomes vastly more in depth. It was also placed in a confusing manner and linked to a wiki page that is serving as a place holder.

So, fix it or nix it? I doubt it will be missed. Ken Zug (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KwZug (talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)