Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Reversible Verbal Memory Integration Deficits in Obstructive Sleep Apnoea Cover

Reversible Verbal Memory Integration Deficits in Obstructive Sleep Apnoea

Open Access
|Mar 2021

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Demographic features of original and follow-up testing samples.

ORIGINAL SAMPLE (S1–S2)RANGE S1–S2FOLLOW–UP SAMPLE (S3)RANGE S3
Age55.95 (9.15)42–7355.25 (10.17)42–73
PSQI8.21 (4.06)2–167.73 (4.92)2–16
ESS8.65 (4.65)3–209.17 (4.90)3–20
FSS3.76 (1.87)1,22–73.85 (1.98)1,22–7
Mental BFS3.55 (2.69)0–91.5 (0.25–3)0–8
Physical BFS4.3 (2.66)0–103.5 (2.20)0–8
Morningness-Eveningness scale21.5 (8.61)12–4020 (7.19)12–32
Distinctness scale17.10 (7.21)6–3016 (8)6–30
HADS Total12.45 (5.79)3–2812.08 (6.68)3–28
HADS Anxiety6.5 (3.46)2–156.08 (3.61)2–15
HADS Depression5.95 (3.66)1–136 (3.98)1–13
Mill Hill21.57 (6.82)4–3323.58 (5.14)14–33
Phonological fluency22.20 (6.98)13–3821.08 (7.38)13–38
Semantical fluency26.29 (6.51)15–3827.25 (6.06)18–36
Reciprocal reaction time (PVT)3.03 (.26)2.48–3.463.02 (0.20)2.71–3.34

[i] Note: For the original testing sample (sessions S1 and S2), n = 23 except PSQI n = 21. For the follow-up sample (session S3), n = 12 except PSQI n = 11. PSQI = Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI, sleep quality of the previous month; Buysse et al., 1989); FSS = Fatigue Severity Scale (Krupp et al., 1989). BFS = Brugmann Fatigue Scale (Mairesse et al., 2017). ESS = Epworth Sleepiness Scale (Johns 1991). HADS = Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (Zigmond & Snaith, 1983). PVT = Psychomotor Vigilance Test (Basner et al., 2015). Data are given as mean (SD) or median (quartile 1-quartile 3). For the reciprocal reaction time in the PVT, the wilcoxon signed-rank tests testing for differences between S1 and S2 (Z = –1.65, p = .1) and between S2 and S3 (–1.73, p = .084) were non-significant.

Table 2

Subjective sleep quality for the night before the experimental sessions.

BASELINE (S1)CPAP TRIAL (S2)FOLLOW-UP (S3)S2–S1S3–S1
M (SD =)M (SD =)M (SD =)
Sleep depth4.09 (.33)4.63(.35)6.42 (.47)Δ = .55; p = .18Δ = 2.33; p < .001
Sleep quality2.78 (.24)3.25 (.25)4.97 (.35)Δ = .47; p = .16Δ = 2.18; p < .001
Sleep satisfaction2.44 (.23)3.12 (.24)4.01 (.33)Δ = .68; p = .03Δ = 1.57; p < .001
Nocturnal awakenings2.78 (.35)2.70 (.36).51 (.48)Δ = –.09; p = .82Δ = –2.28; p < .001
Perceived difficulty of falling asleep1.83 (.15)2.04 (.16).84 (.21)Δ = .21; p = .26Δ = –.99; p < .001

[i] Note: Subjective Sleep quality (Ellis et al., 1981) mean (standard deviation) values for the nights preceding the verbal learning sessions, and between-sessions comparison statistics. Δ: differential score between sessions.

Table 3

Polysomnographic parameters at Baseline (S1) and CPAP trial (S2) nights.

BASELINECPAP TRIALBASELINE VS. CPAP TRIAL NIGHTDIRECTIONALITY
M (SD)M (SD)F, P
TIB515.75 (7.47)510.26 (7.47)F(1,22) = .83 p = .37S1 = S2
TST357.41 (15.93)346.94 (15.93)F(1,22) = .39 p = .54S1 = S2
SPT424.33 (15.43)411.74 (15.43)F(1,22) = .74 p = .4S1 = S2
Sleep efficiency68.95 (2.55)67.7 (2.55)F(1,22) = .20 p = .66S1 = S2
Total number of Arousals241.59 (15.86)113.68 (15.86)F(1,21) = 57.96 p < .01S1 > S2
Snore (%)36.51 (4.10)11.26 (4.10)F(1,22) = 33.06 p < .01S1 > S2
N1 (%)18.25 (1.99)13.97 (1.99)F(1,22) = 4.23 p = .05S1 > S2
N2 (%)52.10 (2.83)48.33 (2.83)F(1,22) = 1.25 p = .28S1 = S2
N3 (%)17.08 (2.25)19.99 (2.25)F(1,22) = 1.23 p = .28S1 = S2
REM (%)12.57 (1.19)17.72 (1.19)F(1,22) = 16.93 p < .01S1 < S2
AHI (/h)39.9 (3.08)10.14 (3.08)F(1,22) = 73.53 p < .01S1 > S2
AHI REM (/h)33.74 (3.30)6.97 (3.30)F(1,22) = 38.62 p < .01S1 > S2
AHI NREM (/h)40.44 (3.33)10.95 (3.33)F(1,22) = 63.78 p < .01S1 > S2
OAHI (/h)37.31 (3.13)8.26 (3.13)F(1,21) = 66.10 p < .01S1 > S2
RDI (/h)45.1 (3.02)12.19 (3.02)F(1,21) = 99.59 p < .01S1 > S2
RDI REM (/h)37.54 (3.46)8.39 (3.46)F(1,22) = 37.66 p < .01S1 > S2
RDI NREM (/h)45.60 (3.12)13.17 (3.12)F(1,22) = 95.93 p < .01S1 > S2
ODI (/h)27.06 (3.53)7.02 (3.53)F(1,22) = 28.58 p < .01S1 > S2
Mean Saturation27.05 (3.53)7.02 (3.53)F(1,22) = 28.58 p < .01S1 > S2
ArI Total241.59 (15.89)113.68 (15.89)F(1,21) = 57.96 p < .01S1 > S2
ArI respiration27.52 (4.2)9.48 (4.2)F(1,22) = 11.70 p = .02S1 > S2
ArI Desaturation96.87 (10.59)15.65 (10.59)F(1,22) = 42.76 p < .01S1 > S2

[i] Note: TIB = time in bed; TST = total sleep time; SPT = sleep period time; N1(%) = proportion (%) sleep stage N1 on TST; N2(%) = % sleep stage N2; N3(%) = % sleep stage N3; REM (%) = % sleep stage REM; AHI = apnoea and hypopnea index; AHI REM = apnoea and hypopnea index during REM stage; AHI NREM = apnoea and hypopnea index during Non-REM stages; OAHI = obstructive apnoea and hypopnea index; RDI = respiratory disturbance index; RDI REM = respiratory disturbance index during REM stage; RDI NREM = respiratory disturbance index during Non-REM stages; ODI = oxygen desaturation index; ArI total = total arousals index; ArI respiration = respiratory related arousals index; ArI desaturation = desaturation related arousals index. Directionality in the last column indicates the direction of the differences between Baseline and CPAP trial nights, with S1 = S2 meaning no statistically significant differences.

pb-61-1-1035-g1.png
Figure 1

Recognition score (number of words endorsed) for learned words and lures.

Session 1: Baseline, Session 2: After CPAP-trial, Session 3: Follow-up. Data shown as mean ± standard deviations. S1–S2: 23 participants. S3: 12 participants. * p < .05, ** p < .01.

pb-61-1-1035-g2.png
Figure 2

Recognition score (number of words endorsed) for learned words and lures for which the recognition was based on a clear memory of the studied word (Remember).

Session 1: Baseline, Session 2: After CPAP-trial, Session 3: Follow-up. Data shown as mean ± standard deviations. S1–S2: 23 participants. S3: 12 participants. * p < .05, ** p < .01.

pb-61-1-1035-g3.png
Figure 3

Recognition score (number of words endorsed) for learned words and lures for which the recognition was based on a feeling of familiarity about the word (Know).

Session 1: Baseline, Session 2: After CPAP-trial, Session 3: Follow-up. Data shown as mean ± standard deviations. S1– S2: 23 participants. S3: 12 participants. * p < .05, ** p < .01.

pb-61-1-1035-g4.png
Figure 4

Recognition score (number of words endorsed) for learned words and lures for which the recognition was at random (Guess).

Session 1: Baseline, Session 2: After CPAP-trial, Session 3: Follow-up. Data shown as mean ± standard deviations. S1–S2: 23 participants. S3: 12 participants. * p < .05, ** p < .01.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.1035 | Journal eISSN: 0033-2879
Language: English
Submitted on: Oct 12, 2020
Accepted on: Mar 3, 2021
Published on: Mar 25, 2021
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2021 Oumaïma Benkirane, Daniel Neu, Rémy Schmitz, Hedwige Dehon, Olivier Mairesse, Philippe Peigneux, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.