Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In order to develop objective indexes for chronotype identification by means of direct measurement of circadian rhythms, 159 undergraduate students were recruited as volunteers and instructed to wear ambulatory circadian monitoring (ACM) sensors that continuously gathered information on the individual’s environmental light and temperature exposure, wrist temperature, body position, activity and the integrated TAP (Temperature, Activity and Position) variable for 7 consecutive days under regular free-living conditions. Among all the proposed indexes, the night phase marker (NPM) of the TAP variable was the best suited to discriminate among chronotypes, due to its relationship with the Munich ChronoType Questionnaire (β=0.531; p100 lux), with a daily average of 93.84±5.72 minutes, the earlier chronotypes were exposed to brighter days and darker nights as compared to the later chronotypes. Furthermore, the earlier chronotypes were associated with higher stability and day-night contrast, along with an earlier phase, which could be the cause or consequence of the light exposure habits. Overall, these data support the use of ACM for chronotype identification and for evaluation under free living-conditions, using objective markers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martínez-Nicolás et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: