This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sshong94.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
http://www.physorg.com/news174228584.html looks interesting and maybe relevant to this article. 70.90.174.101 ( talk) 20:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKnO6l2GKXE Ignite talk by Adam Claridge Chang about the Pomace fly and circadian rhythm. Notjim ( talk)
I mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Biological_clock_human.PNG
I have my doubts such a picture can be produced scientifically correct, without qualifiers 88.159.72.240 ( talk) 14:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The fact that it doesn’t even state which dusk and dawn times it is based on, shows you how bad this picture is. Let alone that dusk and dawn take some time too. They can not be correct for any place that's not perfectly on the equator and doesn’t use a clock based on the very local true noon anyway. E.g. for my location, the sun can go down at 22:00 with daylight saving in summer, or at 16:30 PM in winter, and but true noon can be up to 45 minutes off from out official time zone. How do the times in that picture even relate to that reality? — 89.0.49.164 ( talk) 21:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Under Circadian_rhythm#Enforced_longer_cycles it reqiures a citation for people, average, having a slightly longer that 24h circadian rhythm. The following seems to be a valid source, cited in Psychology: Themes and Variations, a first year uni textbook for psych. Anybody with a bit more familiarity could add it.
Czeisler, C.A., Buxton, O.M., & Khalsa, S. (2005). The human circadian timing system and sleep-wake regulation. In M.H. Kryger, T. Roth, & W.C. Dement (Eds.), "Principles and practice of sleep medicine". Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B0-72-160797-7%2F50038-0 70.26.108.98 ( talk) 20:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I have a suggestion for this page. I would just do it myself, but I am not well-versed in this field and would hate to mess things up. This page is written for scientists only in many places. While I support the use of technical language when it is necessary to use it, I think it's been significantly abused here. Take this for example: "Although circadian rhythms are endogenous, they are adjusted (entrained) to the environment by external cues called zeitgebers, the primary one of which is daylight".
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.172.210 ( talk) 03:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
What do you guys think about a section on adjusting your circadian rhythm? Most people use light exposure, melatonin supplements, and more recently food exposure.
http://parentingsquad.com/easy-way-to-reset-your-sleep-cycle-stop-eating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.84.200 ( talk • contribs)
The article on Sleep architecture is not much more than a stub, and I think would be better off if it were merged into this article under the human health section. Sleep architecture seems to refer essentially to the makeup of one's sleep - the time spent in non-REM (NREM) and REM sleep stages, how much total sleep one gets in a 24 hr period, and how sleep is phased throughout that 24 hour period (ie. one long period of sleep, or two shorter ones, or a large number of much shorter periods). These parameters and the concept of bringing them together under the term "sleep architecture" is well within the scope of this article's discussion, and this (relatively minor) merger would benefit wikipedia in my opinion. Also, I noticed that before this article was made,the search term "Sleep architecture" would redirect you to the article " Sleep" into the section Stages of sleep. That might also be an appropriate place to merge "Sleep architecture"; I personally found it rather difficult to decide whether that location is more or less appropriate than this one - I am interested in what others may think. Spiral5800 ( talk) 04:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Why not just have a title that refers to that sleep argument. Have it blank under, and send a link to it. then under it put {main|Sleep architecture}
Sleep Architecture Main Article: Sleep archecture {main|Sleep architecture} Sidelight12 ( talk) 12:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I put it under see also instead. I have doubts. Sidelight12 ( talk) 13:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Let's leave it out, it has to do with phases of sleep rather than time of day, I linked it from see also, on the bottom instead. Sidelight12 ( talk) 13:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I propose that instead we merge ultradian rhythm here. Rather than being stand-alone concepts, ultradian and infradian hardly make sense except in relationhip together with circadian. The ultradian article (and infradian even more so) is presently just a stub anyway. Perhaps we should also talk more generally about the best ways to improve or restructure this encyclopedia's treatment of chronobiology? Cesiumfrog ( talk) 03:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Question at Template talk:Light Ethology#Convert to sidebar? that you might be able to help with, or give feedback/suggestions on. (please reply there) Thanks. — Quiddity ( talk) 20:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems a bit odd, but I don't find anything on the page about being overtired? It seems fairly essential, and yets its missing? Unifoe ( talk) 23:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Early research into circadian rhythms suggested that most people preferred a day closer to 25 hours when isolated from external stimuli like daylight and timekeeping. However, this research was faulty because it failed to shield the participants from artificial light. Although subjects were shielded from time cues (like clocks) and daylight, the researchers were not aware of the phase-delaying effects of indoor electric lights.[28] The subjects were allowed to turn on light when they were awake and to turn it off when they wanted to sleep. Electric light in the evening delayed their circadian phase. These results became well-known.[29]
To me, this sounds contradictory. Circadian rhythm is described as an internal master clock. The article then goes on to say, however, that one's activity pattern can be influenced by the presence of light. This seems to imply that the circadian rhythm, as described, does not actually exist, since activity is driven by light as well, and not the supposed internal master clock. The quoted passage appears to be starting with the conclusion (that a 24hr circadian rhythm exists) and then faults the study for not corroborating it. Working merely from the evidence, and using available light as a control factor, the study seems to show that there is no 24hr internal clock. Shielding subjects from artificial light, as the passage puts it, would invalidate the control variable. If the study had done that, it would set the amount of light available during the day to the same amount assumed by the circadian rhythm theory, and would not prove that the 24hr cycle was driven internally as opposed to being driven by the availability of light. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 03:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Gary Dee 18:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm alarmed at the state of this article. Please review WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. This is not an uncommon topic; secondary reviews are available. Recent secondary reviews should be used. There is no reason for blog sourcing here.
Per WP:CITEVAR, the earliest cited versions of this article show that the citation format used was the one generated by the Diberri BogHog PMID citation filling template. When I started working here, I found citation formatting all over the place, and made them consistent to the original citation format. Please follow.
Also, there is an outdated list in Further reading that could probably be pruned, and the link farm in See also should be pruned or worked into the article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
From the current issue of the Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics.
-- SvenAERTS ( talk) 00:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
This is suggested by the maintenance (heritability) of circadian rhythms in fruit flies after several hundred generations in constant laboratory conditions,[13] as well as in creatures in constant darkness in the wild, and by the experimental elimination of behavioural but not physiological circadian rhythms in quail. -This sentence should be made into two sentences. It is too lengthy which can get confusing when reading it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexabadura ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Review about circadian metabolism doi:10.1210/er.2015-1007 JFW | T@lk 22:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe this is a citation for the following sentence: "Other physiological changes that occur according to a circadian rhythm include heart rate" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.110.26 ( talk) 02:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
What does it mean? Equinox ( talk) 20:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Caffine at bedtime pushes back the body's circadian clock.
Headline-1: Caffeine at Night Does More Than Keep You Up Late
QUOTE: "SCIENTISTS FIND THAT ESPRESSO 3 HOURS BEFORE BEDTIME DELAYS THE CIRCADIAN CLOCK ... caffeine has another physiological impact on sleep by delaying the body's natural surge in the production of the sleep hormone melatonin, which in turn pushes back the body's circadian clock. "To our surprise, no one had really tested this question," one of the researchers tells NPR. "What we're seeing here now is another way that caffeine impacts our physiology that we didn't know about before in humans." The problem in this case is that the circadian clock is "present in cells throughout our entire body," says the researcher. "It's in your fat cells; it's in your muscle cells." Messing with it appears to play a role in a wide range of health problems, from obesity to cancer. Many studies have recently suggested that bright light at night, especially the blue light emanating from our screens, impedes melatonin production." -- AstroU ( talk) 09:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC) -- PS: For future editing.
Suggested file to add to this article. — Cirt ( talk) 16:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm noticing a lot of tags in the Reference section that say, "non-primary source needed." Primary sources are sometimes the only sources available, and there's no rule against them. Instead, they need to be used "with care." I've always understood that to mean that when poking around on Google Scholar, if I find something that seems useful and informative, I'll first check to see if it reflects the mainstream of scholarly opinion. For example, a single research paper is nothing, but if it's been frequently cited that's better. My next question is: has the research been independently corroborated? If so, do the experts in the field take it seriously, or are they just ignoring it? Zyxwv99 ( talk) 01:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Impact on sleep doi:10.1210/er.2016-1083 JFW | T@lk 14:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Who opens an article with that phrase for an encyclopedia? 173.15.73.108 ( talk) 05:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, My name is Omer, and I'm a journalist and young researcher based in Israel. Over the past two years, me and Rona Aviram, a clock biologist from the Weizmann Institute of Science, have studied this article and the one for Circadian Rhythms to try to understand how science and Wikipedia interact. What began as an argument between two friends from two different worlds - me from the history and philosophy of science, and Rona from biology - turned into a full on study of how scientific knowledge is collectively created on Wikipedia.
I am super excited to say the paper is now out on the peer-reviewed Journal of Biological Rhythms. In the paper, we trace how certain ideas permeated from academic literature into these articles and also focused on who edited and contributed content. Specifically, we focused on how people like Hordaland who had personal knowledge despite having no official academic training, were able to contribute in way that in the past was impossible.
For the next few weeks that article will be free to download from the SAGE website (you just need to create a SAGE user name, which is free... I hope to put in on some preprint archive once I figure out which version I can legally do this for)
I'm having some technical difficulties uploading the figures, which I would love to share with you, and will try to do so soon
We would love to hear your feedback Omer Benjakob and Rona Avira -- Omer Benjakob ( talk) 15:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
See
I was going to add this to the boxes above but that is built from newspapers or the like. Jytdog ( talk) 04:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
In the article, in many place, times for certain events are noted. Example:
But it is never mentioned in relation to what they were meant.
The actual time of sunrise or sunset isn’t mentioned. The time zone isn’t mentioned. The time of year and latitude aren’t mentioned.
Meaning those times are pretty much useless. They could be off from the true local time (based on the sun) by literal hours.
Most of the time, not even if this was still based on studies using artificial light was mentioned.
Can we fix this?
—
89.0.49.164 (
talk) 21:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sshong94.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
http://www.physorg.com/news174228584.html looks interesting and maybe relevant to this article. 70.90.174.101 ( talk) 20:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKnO6l2GKXE Ignite talk by Adam Claridge Chang about the Pomace fly and circadian rhythm. Notjim ( talk)
I mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Biological_clock_human.PNG
I have my doubts such a picture can be produced scientifically correct, without qualifiers 88.159.72.240 ( talk) 14:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The fact that it doesn’t even state which dusk and dawn times it is based on, shows you how bad this picture is. Let alone that dusk and dawn take some time too. They can not be correct for any place that's not perfectly on the equator and doesn’t use a clock based on the very local true noon anyway. E.g. for my location, the sun can go down at 22:00 with daylight saving in summer, or at 16:30 PM in winter, and but true noon can be up to 45 minutes off from out official time zone. How do the times in that picture even relate to that reality? — 89.0.49.164 ( talk) 21:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Under Circadian_rhythm#Enforced_longer_cycles it reqiures a citation for people, average, having a slightly longer that 24h circadian rhythm. The following seems to be a valid source, cited in Psychology: Themes and Variations, a first year uni textbook for psych. Anybody with a bit more familiarity could add it.
Czeisler, C.A., Buxton, O.M., & Khalsa, S. (2005). The human circadian timing system and sleep-wake regulation. In M.H. Kryger, T. Roth, & W.C. Dement (Eds.), "Principles and practice of sleep medicine". Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B0-72-160797-7%2F50038-0 70.26.108.98 ( talk) 20:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I have a suggestion for this page. I would just do it myself, but I am not well-versed in this field and would hate to mess things up. This page is written for scientists only in many places. While I support the use of technical language when it is necessary to use it, I think it's been significantly abused here. Take this for example: "Although circadian rhythms are endogenous, they are adjusted (entrained) to the environment by external cues called zeitgebers, the primary one of which is daylight".
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.172.210 ( talk) 03:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
What do you guys think about a section on adjusting your circadian rhythm? Most people use light exposure, melatonin supplements, and more recently food exposure.
http://parentingsquad.com/easy-way-to-reset-your-sleep-cycle-stop-eating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.84.200 ( talk • contribs)
The article on Sleep architecture is not much more than a stub, and I think would be better off if it were merged into this article under the human health section. Sleep architecture seems to refer essentially to the makeup of one's sleep - the time spent in non-REM (NREM) and REM sleep stages, how much total sleep one gets in a 24 hr period, and how sleep is phased throughout that 24 hour period (ie. one long period of sleep, or two shorter ones, or a large number of much shorter periods). These parameters and the concept of bringing them together under the term "sleep architecture" is well within the scope of this article's discussion, and this (relatively minor) merger would benefit wikipedia in my opinion. Also, I noticed that before this article was made,the search term "Sleep architecture" would redirect you to the article " Sleep" into the section Stages of sleep. That might also be an appropriate place to merge "Sleep architecture"; I personally found it rather difficult to decide whether that location is more or less appropriate than this one - I am interested in what others may think. Spiral5800 ( talk) 04:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Why not just have a title that refers to that sleep argument. Have it blank under, and send a link to it. then under it put {main|Sleep architecture}
Sleep Architecture Main Article: Sleep archecture {main|Sleep architecture} Sidelight12 ( talk) 12:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I put it under see also instead. I have doubts. Sidelight12 ( talk) 13:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Let's leave it out, it has to do with phases of sleep rather than time of day, I linked it from see also, on the bottom instead. Sidelight12 ( talk) 13:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I propose that instead we merge ultradian rhythm here. Rather than being stand-alone concepts, ultradian and infradian hardly make sense except in relationhip together with circadian. The ultradian article (and infradian even more so) is presently just a stub anyway. Perhaps we should also talk more generally about the best ways to improve or restructure this encyclopedia's treatment of chronobiology? Cesiumfrog ( talk) 03:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Question at Template talk:Light Ethology#Convert to sidebar? that you might be able to help with, or give feedback/suggestions on. (please reply there) Thanks. — Quiddity ( talk) 20:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems a bit odd, but I don't find anything on the page about being overtired? It seems fairly essential, and yets its missing? Unifoe ( talk) 23:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Early research into circadian rhythms suggested that most people preferred a day closer to 25 hours when isolated from external stimuli like daylight and timekeeping. However, this research was faulty because it failed to shield the participants from artificial light. Although subjects were shielded from time cues (like clocks) and daylight, the researchers were not aware of the phase-delaying effects of indoor electric lights.[28] The subjects were allowed to turn on light when they were awake and to turn it off when they wanted to sleep. Electric light in the evening delayed their circadian phase. These results became well-known.[29]
To me, this sounds contradictory. Circadian rhythm is described as an internal master clock. The article then goes on to say, however, that one's activity pattern can be influenced by the presence of light. This seems to imply that the circadian rhythm, as described, does not actually exist, since activity is driven by light as well, and not the supposed internal master clock. The quoted passage appears to be starting with the conclusion (that a 24hr circadian rhythm exists) and then faults the study for not corroborating it. Working merely from the evidence, and using available light as a control factor, the study seems to show that there is no 24hr internal clock. Shielding subjects from artificial light, as the passage puts it, would invalidate the control variable. If the study had done that, it would set the amount of light available during the day to the same amount assumed by the circadian rhythm theory, and would not prove that the 24hr cycle was driven internally as opposed to being driven by the availability of light. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 03:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Gary Dee 18:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm alarmed at the state of this article. Please review WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. This is not an uncommon topic; secondary reviews are available. Recent secondary reviews should be used. There is no reason for blog sourcing here.
Per WP:CITEVAR, the earliest cited versions of this article show that the citation format used was the one generated by the Diberri BogHog PMID citation filling template. When I started working here, I found citation formatting all over the place, and made them consistent to the original citation format. Please follow.
Also, there is an outdated list in Further reading that could probably be pruned, and the link farm in See also should be pruned or worked into the article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
From the current issue of the Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics.
-- SvenAERTS ( talk) 00:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
This is suggested by the maintenance (heritability) of circadian rhythms in fruit flies after several hundred generations in constant laboratory conditions,[13] as well as in creatures in constant darkness in the wild, and by the experimental elimination of behavioural but not physiological circadian rhythms in quail. -This sentence should be made into two sentences. It is too lengthy which can get confusing when reading it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexabadura ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Review about circadian metabolism doi:10.1210/er.2015-1007 JFW | T@lk 22:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe this is a citation for the following sentence: "Other physiological changes that occur according to a circadian rhythm include heart rate" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.110.26 ( talk) 02:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
What does it mean? Equinox ( talk) 20:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Caffine at bedtime pushes back the body's circadian clock.
Headline-1: Caffeine at Night Does More Than Keep You Up Late
QUOTE: "SCIENTISTS FIND THAT ESPRESSO 3 HOURS BEFORE BEDTIME DELAYS THE CIRCADIAN CLOCK ... caffeine has another physiological impact on sleep by delaying the body's natural surge in the production of the sleep hormone melatonin, which in turn pushes back the body's circadian clock. "To our surprise, no one had really tested this question," one of the researchers tells NPR. "What we're seeing here now is another way that caffeine impacts our physiology that we didn't know about before in humans." The problem in this case is that the circadian clock is "present in cells throughout our entire body," says the researcher. "It's in your fat cells; it's in your muscle cells." Messing with it appears to play a role in a wide range of health problems, from obesity to cancer. Many studies have recently suggested that bright light at night, especially the blue light emanating from our screens, impedes melatonin production." -- AstroU ( talk) 09:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC) -- PS: For future editing.
Suggested file to add to this article. — Cirt ( talk) 16:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm noticing a lot of tags in the Reference section that say, "non-primary source needed." Primary sources are sometimes the only sources available, and there's no rule against them. Instead, they need to be used "with care." I've always understood that to mean that when poking around on Google Scholar, if I find something that seems useful and informative, I'll first check to see if it reflects the mainstream of scholarly opinion. For example, a single research paper is nothing, but if it's been frequently cited that's better. My next question is: has the research been independently corroborated? If so, do the experts in the field take it seriously, or are they just ignoring it? Zyxwv99 ( talk) 01:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Impact on sleep doi:10.1210/er.2016-1083 JFW | T@lk 14:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Who opens an article with that phrase for an encyclopedia? 173.15.73.108 ( talk) 05:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, My name is Omer, and I'm a journalist and young researcher based in Israel. Over the past two years, me and Rona Aviram, a clock biologist from the Weizmann Institute of Science, have studied this article and the one for Circadian Rhythms to try to understand how science and Wikipedia interact. What began as an argument between two friends from two different worlds - me from the history and philosophy of science, and Rona from biology - turned into a full on study of how scientific knowledge is collectively created on Wikipedia.
I am super excited to say the paper is now out on the peer-reviewed Journal of Biological Rhythms. In the paper, we trace how certain ideas permeated from academic literature into these articles and also focused on who edited and contributed content. Specifically, we focused on how people like Hordaland who had personal knowledge despite having no official academic training, were able to contribute in way that in the past was impossible.
For the next few weeks that article will be free to download from the SAGE website (you just need to create a SAGE user name, which is free... I hope to put in on some preprint archive once I figure out which version I can legally do this for)
I'm having some technical difficulties uploading the figures, which I would love to share with you, and will try to do so soon
We would love to hear your feedback Omer Benjakob and Rona Avira -- Omer Benjakob ( talk) 15:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
See
I was going to add this to the boxes above but that is built from newspapers or the like. Jytdog ( talk) 04:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
In the article, in many place, times for certain events are noted. Example:
But it is never mentioned in relation to what they were meant.
The actual time of sunrise or sunset isn’t mentioned. The time zone isn’t mentioned. The time of year and latitude aren’t mentioned.
Meaning those times are pretty much useless. They could be off from the true local time (based on the sun) by literal hours.
Most of the time, not even if this was still based on studies using artificial light was mentioned.
Can we fix this?
—
89.0.49.164 (
talk) 21:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)