Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14401/KASMED.2015.22.2.70

Psychophysiological Characteristics of Insomnia Patients Measured by Biofeedback System  

Huh, Sung-Young (Department of Neuropsychiatry, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital)
Lee, Jin-Seong (Department of Neuropsychiatry, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital)
Kim, Sung-Gon (Department of Neuropsychiatry, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital)
Kim, Ji-Hoon (Department of Neuropsychiatry, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital)
Jung, Woo-Young (Department of Neuropsychiatry, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital)
Publication Information
Sleep Medicine and Psychophysiology / v.22, no.2, 2015 , pp. 70-76 More about this Journal
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Insomnia is the most prevalent sleep disorder in the general population and is considered to be a disorder of hyperarousal. The aim of this study was to measure the psychophysiological responses in insomnia patients using a biofeedback system, and to compare them with results from normal healthy subjects. Materials and Methods: Eighty patients with primary insomnia (35 males and 45 females, average age $49.71{\pm}12.91years$) and 101 normal healthy controls (64 males and 37 females, average age $27.65{\pm}2.77$) participated in this study. Electromyography (EMG), heart rate (HR), skin conductance (SC), skin temperature (ST), and respiratory rate (RR) were recorded using a biofeedback system during 5 phases (baseline, stress 1, recovery 1, stress 2, recovery 2) of a stress reactivity test, and average values were calculated. Difference in values between the two groups in each corresponding phase was analyzed with independent t-test, and change in values across phases of the stress reactivity test was analyzed with paired t-test (all two-tailed, p<0.05). Results: Compared to normal controls, insomnia patients had higher EMG in all 5 phases (baseline : $7.72{\pm}3.88{\mu}V$ vs. $4.89{\pm}1.73{\mu}V$, t = -6.06, p<0.001 ; stress 1 : $10.29{\pm}5.16{\mu}V$ vs. $6.63{\pm}2.48{\mu}V$, t = -5.84, p<0.001 ; recovery 1 : $7.87{\pm}3.86{\mu}V$ vs. $5.17{\pm}2.17{\mu}V$, t = -5.61, p<0.001 ; stress 2 : $10.22{\pm}6.07{\mu}V$ vs. $6.98{\pm}2.98{\mu}V$, t = -4.37, p<0.001 ; recovery 2 : $7.88{\pm}4.25{\mu}V$ vs. $5.17{\pm}1.99{\mu}V$, t = -5.27, p<0.001). Change in heart rate across phases of the stress reactivity test were higher in normal controls than in insomnia patients (stress 1-baseline : $6.48{\pm}0.59$ vs. $3.77{\pm}0.59$, t = 3.22, p = 0.002 ; recovery 1- stress 1 : $-5.36{\pm}0.0.59$ vs. $-3.16{\pm}0.47$, t = 2.91, p = 0.004 ; stress 2-recovery 1 : $8.45{\pm}0.61$ vs. $4.03{\pm}0.47$, t = 5.72, p<0.001 ; recovery 2-stress 2 : $-8.56{\pm}0.65$ vs. $4.02{\pm}0.51$, t = -5.31, p<0.001). Conclusion: Psychophysiological profiles of insomnia patients in a stress reactivity test were different from those of normal healthy controls. These results suggest that the sympathetic nervous system is more highly activated in insomnia patients.
Keywords
Insomnia; Psychophysiology; Biofeedback; Physiological stress reactivity; Electromyography;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Buysse DJ. Insomnia. JAMA 2013;309:706-716.   DOI
2 Buysse DJ, Germain A, Hall ML, Moul DE, Nofzinger EA, Begley A, et al. EEG spectral analysis in primary insomnia: NREM period effects and sex differences. Sleep 2008;31:1673-1682.   DOI
3 Chong Y, Fryer CD, Gu Q. Prescription sleep aid use among adults: United States, 2005-2010. NCHS Data Brief 2013:1-8.
4 De Valck E, Cluydts R, Pirrera S. Effect of cognitive arousal on sleep latency, somatic and cortical arousal following partial sleep deprivation. J Sleep Res 2004;13:295-304.   DOI
5 Haynes SN, Moseley D, McGowan WT. Relaxation training and biofeedback in the reduction of frontalis muscle tension. Psychophysiology 1975;12:547-552.   DOI
6 Heiden M, Barnekow-Bergkvist M, Nakata M, Lyskov E. Autonomic activity, pain, and perceived health in patients on sick leave due to stress-related illnesses. Integr Physiol Behav Sci 2005;40:3-16.   DOI
7 Jose AD, Collison D. The normal range and determinants of the intrinsic heart rate in man. Cardiovasc Res 1970;4:160-167.   DOI
8 Kim YL, Koo MS, Kim EJ, Yu BH. Psychophysiological response patterns measured by a biofeedback system in healthy people. Sleep Med Psychophysiol 2002;9:61-67.
9 Lee JS, Kang DH, An HJ, Yoon DH, Jeong DU. Psychophysiological characteristics of chronic pain patients measured by biofeedback system. Sleep Med Psychophysiol 2009;16:79-84.
10 Levenson JC, Kay DB, Buysse DJ. The pathophysiology of insomnia. Chest 2015;147:1179-1192.   DOI
11 O'Brien IA, O'Hare P, Corrall RJ. Heart rate variability in healthy subjects: effect of age and the derivation of normal ranges for tests of autonomic function. Br Heart J 1986;55:348-354.   DOI
12 Riemann D, Spiegelhalder K, Feige B, Voderholzer U, Berger M, Perlis M, et al. The hyperarousal model of insomnia: a review of the concept and its evidence. Sleep Med Rev 2010;14:19-31.   DOI
13 Roth T, Roehrs T, Pies R. Insomnia: pathophysiology and implications for treatment. Sleep Med Rev 2007;11:71-79.   DOI
14 Seo MK, Han WS, Lee KK, Yu BH, Lee YR, Kim E, et al. Characteristics of physiological variables (EDR, EMG) in biofeedback treatment. Sleep Med Psychophysiol 1999;6:38-45.
15 Shusterman V, Barnea O. Sympathetic nervous system activity in stress and biofeedback relaxation. Monitoring SNS activity with the photoplethysmographic-wave envelope and temperature-variability signals. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 2005;24:52-57.
16 Vaughn R, Pall ML, Haynes SN. Frontalis EMG response to stress in subjects with frequent muscle-contraction headaches. Headache 1977;16:313-317.   DOI
17 Yu SE, Hwang IK. A pilot study on the biofeedback aided relaxation in normal subjects. J Kor Neuropsychiatr Assoc 1985;24: 517-522.