CPAPtalk.com

Muffy wrote:

jnk wrote:Only 85 replies to number one!!!!!

Wow! I can't believe it may actually make it!

Muffy

If you hadn't ignored 86 of my messages, we would have been there already!

SleepingUgly wrote:"alpha-delta NREM sleep disruptions" vs. alpha intrusions--what's the difference?

I'm still not clear on whether those terms are the same or not? Are these the phenomena that Dr. Guilleminault has written about in reference to UARS (and which one--the alpha-delta pattern or the alpha intrusions)?

Muffy wrote:

blizzardboy wrote:

Muffy wrote:And the deep sleep is not "disrupted", it's "infected".

So what then is the downside of the "infection" of delta wave sleep by alpha waves in terms of sleep architecture?

Nothing. You can't tell it's there, SWS just goes merrily chugging along (the sleep stage, not the person).

To illustrate this point, let's take a look at some of your SWS and some of the other stuff going on:



The SWS in continuous without arousal. So here you have alpha intrusion, you got some snoring, probably some flow limitation, and your PLMs, and you're sleeping through the whole thing.

SWS = much stability.

Muffy

SleepingUgly wrote:

SleepingUgly wrote:"alpha-delta NREM sleep disruptions" vs. alpha intrusions--what's the difference?

I'm still not clear on whether those terms are the same or not? Are these the phenomena that Dr. Guilleminault has written about in reference to UARS (and which one--the alpha-delta pattern or the alpha intrusions)?

As I understand it, they are all ways of describing (perhaps badly) the same phenomenon from different angles.

And if I am understanding Muffy correctly (I pick up about 30% on a good day [mine, not hers]), "disruption" can be a misnomer, since sleep continues without actual arousal.

But some might still use the word "disruption" in the sense that although the architecture remains intact, the outcome is less than restful sleep. It could be said that the effectiveness of the delta is "disrupted" as the slow wave itself gets contaminated, or interrupted, or infected, with another waveform normally associated with another state. Or something like that.

But the ideas are more important than the semantics of the descriptions.

And it always seems to me that Muffy chooses specific cases very carefully for educational purposes for us all, since it would be impossible to take all of our cases individually. But that doesn't mean she doesn't love us all. She seems to be becoming quite the mother figure.

jeff

jnk wrote:And it always seems to me that Muffy chooses specific cases very carefully for educational purposes for us all, since it would be impossible to take all of our cases individually. But that doesn't mean she doesn't love us all. She seems to be becoming quite the mother figure.

I'd like to hear "Mother" say that she loves me.

SleepingUgly wrote:...I'd like to hear "Mother" say that she loves me.

Hope springs eternal

SleepingUgly wrote:I'd like to hear "Mother" say that she loves me.

Well, you may have just proved the premise of the research link above in a unique way--that "insecure attachment is associated with the α-EEG anomaly."

jnk wrote:But that doesn't mean she doesn't love us all.

I guess you missed the post about the asteroid.

jnk wrote:...since sleep continues without actual arousal.

Speaking of which, in the very next epoch, two PLMs being slept through nicely.



BTW bb, what body positions were you in during the night? I can't tell from the data channel what position 1, 2, etc. is. Do you have the hypnogram from this study?

Muffy

Muffy wrote:

blizzardboy wrote:Was my RR really hitting 40 bpms or is this an artifact?

Well, "IMHO", the actual number is academic. The important part is identifying chaotic breathing when it occurs (not that using these trend numbers is necessarily the Gospel either).

Hi Muffy, If possible, could you please post an example of chaotic breathing from my PSG? Cheers,

p.s. I just realised that I missed a heap of posts. Maybe you have already done this, let me see...

jnk wrote:

SleepingUgly wrote:I'd like to hear "Mother" say that she loves me.

Well, you may have just proved the premise of the research link above in a unique way--that "insecure attachment is associated with the α-EEG anomaly."

What is the relationship between alpha intrusions and being a light sleeper? I always wondered if I was a light sleeper because my mother was ill when I was growing up. I felt like I slept with one ear open to hear if she fell during the night. Then she died. Now the forum "Mother" is rejecting me. I just don't have good luck with mothers, I guess.

Muffy wrote:BTW bb, what body positions were you in during the night? I can't tell from the data channel what position 1, 2, etc. is. Do you have the hypnogram from this study?

Is this http://users.adam.com.au/sixsome/PSG/di ... _hypno.JPG what you are after? So maybe L side corresponds to posn #2. Cheers,

Rebecca R wrote:...can you show us an example of alpha intrusion?

<show-and-tell exhibit>

...Thanks. Just wanted to know what it looks like.

Also, from page 18 of this thread:

DreamDiver wrote:Here's a paper about alpha wave intrusion with FM. Interesting.

Muffy wrote:SWS = much stability.

Yes!!!!!! it's about time someone on this message board acknowledged that!!!! WOOHOO!!!!!!!!

Thank you for saying that! WOOHOO!!!!! I'm stable!..... STABLE!!!!!! YES!!!!!!!!! I'M MUCHO STABLE, SENIOR!!!!!!



<back to our regularly scheduled program...>

ROTFL at these (and soooo many more) zany comments sprinkled throughout blizzardboy's soon-to-be legendary (and truly interesting) topic:

Muffy wrote:

SleepingUgly wrote:I'm not sure if Muffy also put a placeholder on my questions...

Sort of.

Muffy just gets a little nervous when she thinks she sees another setup coming.

SleepingUgly wrote:...or if he's...

SHE!!!

This is why people are confused.

-----

NotMuffy wrote:

blizzardboy wrote:p.s. you look vaguely familiar somehow...maybe its the moustache?

I dunno. You ever been to Singapore?

NotMuffy

-----

blizzardboy wrote:P.S. That's it NM, I saw you in Singapore back in 1996. You were chatting up a Cheese and Pumpkin Seeds at the ButterCup Bakery. Pity I was sick with a bout of Thai belly...

-----

SleepingUgly wrote:Blizzardboy, can we work out a deal that when your problems are solved, I will send you PMs with MY problems, which you will post under your name, and that way Muffy will help me, thinking he's helping you? Shhhh!

-----

SleepingUgly wrote:

jnk wrote:And it always seems to me that Muffy chooses specific cases very carefully for educational purposes for us all, since it would be impossible to take all of our cases individually. But that doesn't mean she doesn't love us all. She seems to be becoming quite the mother figure.

I'd like to hear "Mother" say that she loves me.

-----

Muse-Inc wrote:

SleepingUgly wrote:...I'd like to hear "Mother" say that she loves me.

Hope springs eternal

-----

Muffy wrote:

jnk wrote:But that doesn't mean she doesn't love us all.

I guess you missed the post about the asteroid.

My note: The "asteroid post(s)" was(were)...lemme see...yeah...find 'em by typin' into a Google search this-a-way:
muffy asteroid site:cpaptalk.com

or by cpaptalk searchin' 'nother-way:
search.php?keywords=asteroid&terms=all& ... mit=Search

-----

SleepingUgly wrote:

-SWS wrote: Well, let's put your hearing and touch sensitivity together with your also being a bright physicist. As it turns out sensory hypersensitivity is not at all uncommon the gifted, ADHD, Aspergers, HSP, and a few other populations.

Oh, wait, if it's associated with GIFTEDNESS, then I scored very high on that hypersensitivity scale. I thought it was a measure of neuroticism, so I didn't endorse any items.

------

Muffy wrote:You can't tell it's there, SWS just goes merrily chugging along (the sleep stage, not the person).

Muffy

-----

-SWS wrote:

Muffy wrote:SWS = much stability.

Yes!!!!!! it's about time someone on this message board acknowledged that!!!! WOOHOO!!!!!!!!

Thank you for saying that! WOOHOO!!!!! I'm stable!..... STABLE!!!!!! YES!!!!!!!!!

-----

-SWS wrote:

jnk wrote: Hey, we're at number 5 now!!!!

Don't expect me to pop in with shallow posts just to bump this thread's rankings...

-----

SleepingUgly wrote:

Muffy wrote:

jnk wrote:Only 85 replies to number one!!!!!

Wow! I can't believe it may actually make it!

Muffy

If you hadn't ignored 86 of my messages, we would have been there already!

-----

jnk wrote:

Rebecca R wrote:Number 5?

So is this threat ahead or behind the legendary MOAT?



r

Most threats come from behind.

Although some swim up from deep beneath the moat.

-----

Gawd, how I do love a juicy typo and fun word-play! ROTFL!!

Crazy people...I'm on a message board with crazy people... and lovin' it!

-SWS wrote:I'M MUCHO STABLE, SENIOR!!!!!!

What, I'm only 11.

Muffy

How about

NotMuffy wrote:Course, we'll always have Singapore.

Muffy