Sleep spindles: an overview

A cursory review of the literature reveals that the techniques used to assess psychomotor functions are diverse, often complex, frequently insensitive to drug induced changes and sometimes inconvenient to enact or replicate. Adams (1974) used proof reading ability; Croucher & Hindmarch (1974), the duration of the spiral after effect ; Betts, Clayton & Mackay (1972), low speed car handling tasks; Malpas, Rowan, Joyce & Scott (1970), card sorting ability; Fargus & Hindmarch (1974), a cardriving simulator; Ashton, Hall, Savage, Telford & Thompson (1972), a pursuit rotor; File & Bond (1979), symbol copying; Van Houten & Zenhausern (1967), the absolute auditory threshold; Davis, Hollister, Overall, Johnson & Train (1976), short and long term memory; Ghoneim & Mewaldt (1977), verbal learning; Gendreau, Sherlock, Parsons, McLean, Scott & Suboske (1972), discrimination conditioning of the eyelid response; Gupta (1974), the kinaesthetic figural after effect.

https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2125.1980.tb01745.x

Psychomotor Function and Psychoactive Drugs

When the pharmacologic and clinical properties of the benzodiazepine sedative–anxioly tics were last reviewed comprehensively in 1973 and 1974,1 2 3 their use in clinical practice was very extensive and increasing.4 5 6 It was pointed out that a continuation of the yearly rate of increase would lead to the total tranquilization of America by the turn of the century.7 During the mid-1970s, however, concern emerged among both prescribers and users of these medications about this continuously increasing use. Articles in scientific publications and the lay press suggested some apparently dramatic consequences and hazards of tranquilizer use.8 9 10 11 12 Although the validity of most such reports . . .

Current Status of Benzodiazepines

Insomnia and daytime functioning

The effects of normal aging on sleep spindle and K-complex production.

The effects of flurazepam on the mood and performance of poor sleepers were studied over a 10-day drug period. Twelve poor sleepers, selected on the basis of subjective and objective criteria, were divided into two equal groups after a 7-day placebo baseline period. One group received 30 mg flurazepam 15 min before bedtime for 10 consecutive nights while the other group continued to receive placebo in a double-blind paradigm. Three placebo follow-up nights were run on each subject 2–3 weeks after the final drug night. Performance was tested in the morning, 30–45 min after arousal. Flurazepam significantly impaired performance on a 4-choice reaction time task and the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) but not on a shortterm memory test. Performance impairment on the DSST showed a drug-tolerance effect across the 10-day drug period while performance impairment on the reaction time task showed no tolerance effect. Flurazepam had no significant effect on mood or feelings of sleepiness in the morning or at bedtime despite subjective ratings of a ‘more restful’ and ‘better’ sleep and improved sleep latencies. The placebo baseline mood and performance of the 12 poor sleepers were compared to the mood and performance of 12 good sleepers. Performance did not differ significantly between the two goups. Poor sleepers rated themselves as significantly more tense, confused, fatigued, and less vigorous than the good sleepers.

Michael W. Church

Papers

Mood and performance of poor sleepers during repeated use of flurazepam.

Evoked K-complexes and cardiovascular responses to spindle-synchronous and spindle-asynchronous stimulus clicks during NREM sleep.

The effects of flurazepam hydrochloride on brain electrical activity during sleep