This study finds that EEG markers predict sleep perception impairment in patients with depression, suggesting new clinical approaches.
BACKGROUND Sleep perception impairment (SPI), or paradoxical insomnia, characterized by subjective-objective discrepancies in sleep, is common among patients with depression. Its neurophysiological mechanisms remain unclear. OBJECTIVE This study investigated associations between polysomnography (PSG)-derived sleep macro- and micro-architecture features and SPI in depressed patients. METHODS We enrolled 63 adults (aged 18–65) with DSM-V major depressive disorder. SPI was defined as a ≥60-minute discrepancy in total sleep time or ≥15% difference in sleep efficiency between subjective reports and objective PSG, identifying SPI (n=26) and non-SPI (n=37) groups. All underwent overnight PSG and completed clinical assessments including the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and neurocognitive testing. We analyzed sleep macro-architecture (e.g., sleep efficiency, latency) and EEG micro-architecture (band power, spectral ratios, interhemispheric symmetry), including sleep temporal entropy (STE), reflecting fragmentation of sleep-stage transitions. Logistic and linear regression models assessed predictors of SPI, adjusting for demographics, clinical, and sleep-related covariates. RESULTS Despite comparable objective sleep duration, SPI patients significantly underestimated their sleep, reported poorer subjective sleep quality, exhibited lower EEG total power (median 9.7 vs 12.5 kμV²; p=0.003), decreased interhemispheric EEG symmetry (0.50 vs 0.51; p=0.02), and elevated high-frequency relative to slow-wave EEG activity. Higher EEG total power (OR=0.35 per 1000 μV² increase) and greater EEG symmetry (OR=0.47 per 0.01 increase) independently predicted reduced odds of SPI in adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS EEG-derived biomarkers (spectral power, symmetry, entropy) may differentiate sleep perception phenotypes in depression, offering potential targets for tailored clinical interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: