Chronobiological Research for Cognitive Science: A Multifaceted View.
Christina Schmidt,Yan Bao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.203
IF: 1.559
2017-01-01
PsyCh Journal
Abstract:Chronobiology is on the rise: The Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2017 has been awarded to three chronobiologists (Jeffrey C. Hall, Michael Rosbash, and Michael W. Young) for their work on the molecular mechanisms controlling circadian rhythms. The circadian clock represents an internal timekeeping system that generates nearly 24-hr rhythms in physiology and behavior. It provides an adaptive advantage for living organisms to the 24-hr periodicity of the Earth’s rotation by anticipating environmental changes (e.g., Hastings & Goedert, 2013; Hastings, Reddy, & Maywood, 2003; Kondratova & Kondratov, 2012). Synchronization is also crucial for cognitive processes: The brain provides the temporal platform necessary for perception or attentional modulation, and being desynchronized, whatever the period of the investigated rhythm, can jeopardize brain function and associated health outcomes (Bao et al., 2015). Research on temporal organization indeed perfectly lends itself to vertical interdisciplinarity (from molecules to behavior) such that, besides the term chronobiology, we could equally speak today about chrono-psycho-socio-biology. Extensive research over the past decades has highlighted a full range of human physiology and behavior that is under circadian control. Cell-based autonomous clocks regulate gene expression, be it at the level of transcription, post-transcription, intracellular signaling, or even at the level of mitochondrial activity (Brown, 2014). In addition, more recent studies suggest that circadian clocks play a significant role in developmental, regenerative, and degenerative cellular processes (Brown, 2014). At the physiological level, oscillators co-ordinate or synchronize various operations within and across neuronal networks. The hypothalamic suprachiasmatic nucleus is usually referred to as the circadian “pacemaker” in mammals because it controls not only the daily fluctuations in body temperature, hormone secretion, heart rate, and blood pressure, but also the sleep and wake periods and associated cognitive and brain functions. When assessed under strictly controlled environmental conditions, cognitive performance has been shown to present circadian rhythmicity, the amplitude (and putatively also the phase) of which depends on the investigated cognitive domain (Schmidt, Collette, Cajochen, & Peigneux, 2007). A recent report further detected circadian rhythmicity in a large set of human brain responses underlying vigilant attention (Muto et al., 2016). Importantly, the phase of circadian rhythmicity was locally modulated such that the timing of peak activation depended on the investigated brain region. This is of particular relevance in our 24/7 society, where about one-fifth of the population regularly encounters some kind of shift work or where trans-meridian flights, space travel, and artificial light pollution, all sensitizing misalignment between the internal clock and the environment, are widely spread. By providing temporal organization to the sleep–wake cycle, chronobiology is profoundly and pervasively linked to sleep research. Under entrainment, clock-induced adaptive arousal mechanisms are timed to achieve a continuous period of wakefulness during daytime and consolidated sleep during nighttime (Borbély, 1982; Daan, Beersma, & Borbély, 1984; Dijk & von Schantz, 2005). Maximal circadian wake promotion occurs towards the end of a classical waking day to maintain wakefulness despite increasing sleep pressure levels (Strogatz, Kronauer, & Czeisler, 1987). By contrast, maximal circadian sleep promotion occurs towards the end of the biological night, to maintain sleep despite dissipating sleep pressure levels. Perturbation of the fine-tuned interaction between circadian and sleep– wake-dependent processes leads to fragility of sleep and wakefulness states and associated deterioration in neurobehavioral performance (Dijk & von Schantz, 2005). As such, the interaction between these processes also determines time-of-day modulations in sleepiness and alertness levels, and affects performance in cognitive tasks. Sleeping or being awake at adverse circadian times reflects misalignment (i.e., the offset between sleep–wake cycles and clock-regulated physiology; e.g., Wittmann, Dinich, Merrow, & Roenneberg, 2006), which has been associated with suboptimal health outcomes, including cognitive fitness (Vetter, Fischer, Matera, & Roenneberg, 2015;