Sleep stage priorities in rebounds from sleep deprivation: A response to Feinberg

Abstract

Feinberg's major arguments are ad hoc theoretical explanations for the failed predictions from delta primacy: negative delta rebounds result from pathology; the predominance of REM rebounds from chronic TSD result from stress; and the failure of delta rebounds results from the suppression of delta by REM sleep. All these explanations have been empirically challenged. Still to be explained is how recovery takes place without delta, the relatively small percentage of human sleep that is dominated by delta activity, and the paucity of delta rebound in other species. The bounds of parsimony and empirical support are stretched by delta primacy. It seems less speculative and more empirically grounded to accept that the role of delta in sleep function varies with species, age groups, length and type of deprivation, and other as yet unknown factors. Perhaps if we now give up the ghost of generalized delta primacy, we can emphasize the more viable issues of accounting for the delta differences and explaining the physiological significance of delta. Perhaps we can stop looking aghast at hypnotics that reduce delta activity or using percentage increases of delta activity alone as evidence of powerful hypnotic action.