Sample Of A Band Label Membership: Fill & Download for Free


Download the form

How to Edit Your Sample Of A Band Label Membership Online Free of Hassle

Follow the step-by-step guide to get your Sample Of A Band Label Membership edited with ease:

  • Click the Get Form button on this page.
  • You will be forwarded to our PDF editor.
  • Try to edit your document, like adding text, inserting images, and other tools in the top toolbar.
  • Hit the Download button and download your all-set document for the signing purpose.
Get Form

Download the form

We Are Proud of Letting You Edit Sample Of A Band Label Membership Seamlessly

Get Our Best PDF Editor for Sample Of A Band Label Membership

Get Form

Download the form

How to Edit Your Sample Of A Band Label Membership Online

When dealing with a form, you may need to add text, put on the date, and do other editing. CocoDoc makes it very easy to edit your form just in your browser. Let's see how this works.

  • Click the Get Form button on this page.
  • You will be forwarded to our online PDF editor webpage.
  • In the the editor window, click the tool icon in the top toolbar to edit your form, like highlighting and erasing.
  • To add date, click the Date icon, hold and drag the generated date to the field to fill out.
  • Change the default date by modifying the date as needed in the box.
  • Click OK to ensure you successfully add a date and click the Download button when you finish editing.

How to Edit Text for Your Sample Of A Band Label Membership with Adobe DC on Windows

Adobe DC on Windows is a must-have tool to edit your file on a PC. This is especially useful when you have need about file edit in your local environment. So, let'get started.

  • Click and open the Adobe DC app on Windows.
  • Find and click the Edit PDF tool.
  • Click the Select a File button and select a file to be edited.
  • Click a text box to modify the text font, size, and other formats.
  • Select File > Save or File > Save As to keep your change updated for Sample Of A Band Label Membership.

How to Edit Your Sample Of A Band Label Membership With Adobe Dc on Mac

  • Browser through a form and Open it with the Adobe DC for Mac.
  • Navigate to and click Edit PDF from the right position.
  • Edit your form as needed by selecting the tool from the top toolbar.
  • Click the Fill & Sign tool and select the Sign icon in the top toolbar to make a signature for the signing purpose.
  • Select File > Save to save all the changes.

How to Edit your Sample Of A Band Label Membership from G Suite with CocoDoc

Like using G Suite for your work to finish a form? You can integrate your PDF editing work in Google Drive with CocoDoc, so you can fill out your PDF just in your favorite workspace.

  • Integrate CocoDoc for Google Drive add-on.
  • Find the file needed to edit in your Drive and right click it and select Open With.
  • Select the CocoDoc PDF option, and allow your Google account to integrate into CocoDoc in the popup windows.
  • Choose the PDF Editor option to move forward with next step.
  • Click the tool in the top toolbar to edit your Sample Of A Band Label Membership on the target field, like signing and adding text.
  • Click the Download button to keep the updated copy of the form.

PDF Editor FAQ

Why is progressive rock so underrated compared to the rest of 70s rock music?

I disagree that prog is underrated compared to other 70s music. Underexposed, yes—mainly because commercial radio won’t play it because the songs are too long. But underrated, no.I did a prog rock show on college radio in the early 1980s. This was a time when prog was close to its nadir, reputation-wise. By then most prog bands had sold out and/or broken up. Punk had come along in the late 70s specifically as a reaction to prog or “corporate” or “dinosaur” rock, so part of the fashion of liking punk was hating prog. (For the record, I liked some punk and loathed sellout prog.)I’d say prog’s reputation began to be rehabilitated maybe in the early 2000s. It has gone back where it came from in the first place (late 60s/early 70s), as a cult genre that’s loved by a select audience, respected by serious music fans in general, and ignored by the general public. Old classic prog bands are reuniting (to the extent possible given their ages & health) and playing clubs and small festivals to rapturous audiences that the Internet helps bring together. Tribute bands formed that don’t just play the songs but obsessively replicate every last detail of classic prog bands’ concerts; they go on tours and fill up midsize theaters.But prog isn’t just nostalgia or oldies music nowadays. Part of it is several bands who went beyond just imitating the classic prog sounds and keep the creative flame alive. Another part is the emergence of digital and streaming, which makes it easy for people to sample albums by obscure 70s prog bands that would have been hard to find and expensive to buy in the old days.And then there’s King Crimson. Crimson is the only prog band that has stayed fresh and creative for its entire existence. It’s the only one of those bands that has never sold out, is praised rather than ridiculed for changing membership, and loves to dramatically change arrangements of their classic tunes rather than do “jukebox tours.” Although I’m sure Robert Fripp hates being labeled “prog,” Crimson’s perseverance as a creative force is a thread that binds prog from its origins to the present as a creative type of music. I’m looking forward to seeing them in September on their 50th anniversary tour.

Why did the Grammy 2020 snub BTS?

I’m not sure if you mean by exactly snubbed but I will run down a few categories that I have heard quite several ARMYs rant about that they should have been nominated for but did not.BTS’s Map of the Soul: Persona is the 2nd best selling Physical album in the US for the Year of 2019.Since Map of the Soul Persona is the only BTS release, released within the eligible period for this year's Grammys, I will only do this one.ALBUM OF THE YEAR:I, I – BON IVER (JAGJAGUWAR): 8.1/10 - 32 CRITIC REVIEWSANYDECENTMUSIC? + METACRITIC - 7.9/10NORMAN F**KING ROCKWELL – LANA DE LEY (POLYDOR/INTERSCOPE): 8.5/10 - 29 CRITIC REVIEWSANYDECENTMUSIC? + METACRITIC - 8.6/10WHEN WE ALL FALL ASLEEP, WHERE DO WE GO? – BILLIE EILISH (DARKROOM/INTERSCOPE): 7.9/10 - 22 REVIEWSANYDECENTMUSIC? + METACRITIC - 7.85/10THANK U, NEXT – ARIANA GRANDE (REPUBLIC): 8.2/10 - 25 REVIEWSANYDECENTMUSIC? + METACRITIC - 8.35/10I USED TO KNOW HER – H.E.R (RCA): 6.5/10 - 2 REVIEWS7 – LIL NAS X (COLUMBIA): 5.9/10 - 9 REVIEWSMETACRITIC - 5.7/10CUZ I LOVE YOU – LIZZO (NICE LIFE/ATLANTIC): 8.1/10 - 25 REVIEWSANYDECENTMUSIC? + METACRITIC - 8.15/10FATHER OF THE BRIDE – VAMPIRE WEEKEND (SPRING SNOW/COLUMBIA): 7.8/10 - 34 REVIEWSANYDECENTMUSIC? + METACRITIC - 7.85/10I think that Lil Nas X’s 7 should not have been nominated (Average score of 5.8/10 is not worthy of Grammys nominations).POSSIBLY SNUBBED ALBUMS:TYLER, THE CREATOR - IGOR - 8.5/10 - 21 REVIEWSHONEY - ROBYN (KONICHIWA/INTERSCOPE) - 8.7/10 - 24 REVIEWSSLIPKNOT - WE ARE NOT YOUR KIND - 8.2/10 - 20 REVIEWSBTS - MAP OF THE SOUL: PERSONALABEL(S): BIG HIT/IRIVER/COLUMBIA/VIRGIN7.1/10 - 12 REVIEWSANYDECENTMUSIC? + METACRITIC - 7.2/10CONCLUSION: BTS DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH POINTS, LIL NAS X’S NOMINATION IS QUESTIONABLE AND DEBATABLE, AND I HAVE LISTED 3 ALBUMS WHICH HAVE BEEN CRITICS’S FAVOURITE.——————————————————————————————————————RECORD OF THE YEAR:Boy With Luv received some mixed evaluations from ARMYs, Many have praised it for its light-hearted lyrics and instrumentals, Jin’s Lines, and a shift from some of the previous releases that they have experimented with and released in the past. Some have said that it takes a few plays before you start liking it and it depends on your taste. Some others have defined the song as mediocre and said that the song was dull and disappointing compared to previous releases.Record of the Year goes to the artist(s), producer(s), and engineer(s) involved in crafting the specific recording (hence "record") of a song.But If you look at the Nominees:These songs are some of the most loved songs of the past year, I have listened to all the nominated songs, I really don’t know If Boy With Luv would cut.SONG OF THE YEAR:Song of the Year goes to the songwriter(s) (hence "song) of new material (not including sampled or interpolated material) of a song.So, It’s based on the Lyrical content of the song.If BTS should be nominated, it's an opinion-based question right here, I don’t know.——————————————————————————————————————BEST POP VOCAL ALBUM:Many ARMYs have stated that they did not expect BTS to get nominated for a “Big 4”, but Best Pop Vocal Album is a genre-based album but it is still regarded as one of the bigger awards of the Show.NOMINEES RUNDOWN:THE LION KING: THE GIFT - BEYONCE AND VARIOUS ARTISTS (PARKWOOD/COLUMBIA): 7.00/10 (11 REVIEWS)WHEN WE ALL FALL ASLEEP, WHERE DO WE GO? – BILLIE EILISH (DARKROOM/INTERSCOPE): 7.9/10 - 22 REVIEWSMETACRITIC + ANYDECENTMUSIC? : 7.85/10 (15.7/20)THANK U, NEXT – ARIANA GRANDE (REPUBLIC): 8.2/10 (26 REVIEWS)METACRITIC + ANYDECENTMUSIC? : 8.35/10 (16.7/20)NO.6 COLLABORATIONS PROJECT - ED SHEERAN FEATURING VARIOUS ARTISTS (ASYLUM/ATLANTIC): 5.6/10 - 12 REVIEWS5.7/10 - METACRITICLOVER - TAYLOR SWIFT (REPUBLIC): 7.3/10 - 24 REVIEWS7.55/10 - METACRITIC + ANYDECENTMUSIC?I personally think that Ed Sheeran’s No.6 collaborations project should not have been nominated due to the low scores for critics (Around the same as Lil Nas X) and that it should have gone to someone else.ALBUM(S) THAT I BELIEVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED:A STAR IS BORN - LADY GAGA AND BRADLEY COOPER (INTERSCOPE): 7.3/10 - 8 REVIEWSMETACRITIC: 7.8/10MAP OF THE SOUL: PERSONA - BTSLABEL(S): BIG HIT/IRIVER/COLUMBIA/VIRGIN7.1/10 - 12 REVIEWS7.2/10 - METACRITIC + ANYDECENTMUSIC?BTS and Lion King seem to have similar scores from both reviews and critics, Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper are also not far away. So, this category is one that BTS could have been most likely nominated for since they do have pretty much enough points from the critics.——————————————————————————————————————BEST DUO/GROUP POP PERFORMANCE:Boy With Luv featuring. Halsey.I have listened to each of the nominated tracks (+ Boy With Luv) multiple times before.The track boyfriend is one of my favorite songs and I like the music, which I find very catchy and nice. Sucker is one of the songs that I have listened to over 20+ times and still not get bored of (LMAO, I can remember all the lyrics), Sucker was a very nice comeback for the Jonas Brothers. Old Town Road was a social media hit, Old Town Road is a special song (mix of country and rap), I was ok with the song, I don’t know if it’s grammy quality music (don’t attack me, I’m a 12-year-old). Senorita was one of the most favorite songs of the year, I liked it personally. The sunflower was another big hit, coming from Post Malone and Swae Lee and I liked it (no swear words, so I could blast all around my room).Boy With Luv if should be nominated is an opinion-based question, but I really don’t know if Boy With Luv is a song that should have made the cut.——————————————————————————————————————BEST COMPLICATION SOUNDTRACK FOR VISUAL MEDIA:BTS’s Entry is BTS World soundtrack.Let’s check the reviews of the current category nominees:THE LION KING - HANS ZIMMER AND VARIOUS ARTISTS (WALT DISNEY)7.3/10 - 2 REVIEWSI read off the internet from casual listeners of the soundtrack to Consequences of Sound, it has received mix reviews. Some stating that the soundtrack will stand the test of time and some stating that the Soundtrack is average and that it is a tonally confusing soundtrack.ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD (SOUNDTRACK)There have been no official scores for this soundtrack but Pitchfork has said that the music was "a highlight" and an "oft-disquieting mixtape of golden-age rock'n'roll, radio DJ patter, and period-specific commercials.". Some of the listeners of the soundtrack have stated that it has an excellent selection of music.ROCKETMAN: MUSIC FROM THE MOTION PICTURE - VARIOUS ARTIST (VIRGIN EMI/ITERSCOPE)(I’m Gonna) Love Me Again performed by Elton John and Taron Egerton off the soundtrack had won the 2019 Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song.REVIEWS: 6.1/10 - 3 REVIEWSI have not managed to find any professional critics reviews, they album may have not sat well from pitchfork and all music but some of the listeners of this album seemed to have liked it, with amazon reviews sitting at 9.2/10 out of over 200 reviews. Some have stated it as a tragic ost and stating that it was a machine to make cash after the huge success of the film and soundtrack “Bohemian Rhapsody”.SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE - VARIOUS ARTIST (REPUBLIC)I have not found any official score reviews of this soundtrack but the Title track, “Sunflower” is nominated for Best Pop Duo/Group Performance and the album charted at No.2 on the BB200 and it was a commercial success. Some have stated that the soundtrack implemented well with the movie but if judged as a standalone album, it was mediocre.A STAR IS BORN - LADY GAGA AND BRADLEY COOPER (INTERSCOPE): 7.3/10 - 8 REVIEWSMETACRITIC: 7.8/10Always Remember Us This Way off the soundtrack is one of the nominees for song of the year. Some have praised that Lady Gaga’s and Bradley Cooper’s voices worked great with each other, Some have stated that the overall album was a “home run”. Considering that the song “Shallow” off the soundtrack won the best original song at the Academy Awards almost a whole year ago, this Album is probably winning this grammy.Let’s Look at the BTS World soundtrack:5.8/10 - 3 REVIEWSPitchfork stated that BTS World Soundtrack is the most inessential BTS-affiliated project up to date. Pitchfork stated that “Heartbeat” is an emotive, stadium-ready ballad that recalls fan-favorite single, “Spring Day” (One of my top BTS songs is Spring Day), But Pitchfork did not seem really pleased with the soundtrack stating that the rest of the soundtrack (excluding the collabs) are wholly disposable, but they said that Jimin’s “Cake Waltz” could soundtrack a Disney film.The Album sat well with quite a number of ARMYs, with some stating that it is the “best mobile game soundtrack ever”Some casual listeners of the soundtrack have It's easy to listen but it's also a very dry listen, and it doesn't add anything new to their quality-plummeting discography (some people have stated that BTS’s music quality is plummeting ever since MOTS: Persona, but that’s an opinion based question).Either Lion King Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper are going to win.——————————————————————————————————————BEST MUSIC VIDEO:WE’VE GOT TO TRY - THE CHEMICAL BROTHERSThis Video is basically telling the story of the Russian dog Laika, who was one of the first animals to enter space.GARY CLACK JR. - THIS LANDThis song and video is a politically charged anthem where Clark sings, “This land is mine,” in response to being racially profiled. This song and music video is addressing racism, Gary Clack Jr. has been previously won a Grammys so he has a chance this year.CELLOPHANE - FKA TWIGSAccording to many comments that I have read regarding this music video, it is a fan-favorite. This Video is what some people named “insane and genius”, The Video itself is a video covered in pole dancing scenes and stunning visual effects.OLD TOWN ROAD (OFFICIAL MOVIE) - LIL NAS X & BILLY RAY CYRUSThis is quite a story-telling music video, from 1889 to the present day, from one community to another, and from rap to country.GLAD HE’S GONE - TOVE LOThis is another story-telling music video and it shows a woman talking on her phone from the snowy mountains to the city to the desert. Tove Lo herself states that this might be the best music video she’s ever done.——————————————————————————————————————POST-GRAMMYS EDIT:Note: I did the nominees and rating stuff before the GRAMMYs were heldBTS PERFORMANCE AT THE GRAMMYS:Two years in a row, BTS has got to get invited to the show at got some screen time on the broadcast. Last year, BTS got to present and this year they get promoted to the stage.One thing, I have to say is that Lil Nas X performance at the Grammys is one of the most culturally diverse things that I have witnessed.From Lil Nas X to BTS to Mason Ramsey to Billy Ray Cyrus to Diplo to Young Thung.We have Rappers, a K-pop group, A Kid who got famous from yodeling at Walmart, A Country singer to an Electronic Music DJ.RM Finally gets the recognition that he deserves as a rapper. But the reason why Big Hit may have not let RM do the Grammys solo is since Big Hit is an OT7 stan except for solo mixtapes, stages, and collaborations.Many fans have protested stating that BTS should be given a Solo Stage. You don’t necessarily have to have a nomination before (Demi may not have a nomination but she deserves a solo stage comeback).But At least the Grammys decided to give them some actual air time, well they got approximately 50 seconds with Lil Nas X with “Seoul Town Road” and then another 25 seconds with Lil Nas X, Billy Ray Cyrus, Mason Ramsey, and Diplo, so that’s One Minute and 15 seconds.You may say that One Minute and 15 seconds is short but that’s better than nothing, One Minute and 15 seconds is almost nothing compared to what they get in South Korea.The thing is that GRAMMYs has 84 awards in one night, MMA only had 33 total awards to give out, not the mention each award giving out in the GRAMMYs takes 1 to 3 minutes, which includes the presenter’s speech, nominees VCR, the announcement of the winner, the winner to goes on stage, the acceptance speech.MMA lasts about 4 hours and GRAMMYs lasts about 3 and a half hours of the overall show.So, it explains why Performances don’t last as long.The longest performance of the night was Aerosmith & Run DMC’s Living on the Edge and Walk This way which lasted about 7 minutes and a bit more.The Longest Performance at MMA’s 2019 was BTS’s Intro: Persona, Boy In Luv, Boy With Luv, Mikrokosmos, Dionysus plus each member’s solo dance stage and VCR’s and it tallied up to 37 minutes and 8 seconds because these Broadcasters in South Korea want to bring in the views, BTS normally gets at least 15 minutes + of performance airtime.Overall, I think this performance was pretty fun and interesting to watch, Hopefully, they’ll get a Solo Stage for at least 3 minutes someday.——————————————————————————————————————GRAMMY’s RIGGED??? + IS GRAMMY’s USING BTS FOR CLOUT?There have always been allegations flying around claiming that the GRAMMYs are rigged (not shocking at all, tbh).It is said that the GRAMMYs are based on business relations and not exactly based on music quality.Recently the Former CEO of the Recording Academy, Deborah Dugan came out to spill all the tea. Dugan was the replacement of the former CEO of the Recording Academy, Neil Portnow amid the controversy surrounding sexist comments that he had previously made regarding women recording artists.Dugan also had stated that there was a lack of diversity in the recording academy with only 21 percent of the academy voters being women and only 28 percent of the voting body being people of color.How it Works: The Academy’s full membership casts their choices for the nominations, then committees cull through the top 20 nominees in each category, cutting the final field down to five to eight nominees.Dugan alleges that the members of those committees manipulate the nominations, pushing forward artists they work with regardless of their vote total, and even adding nominees who didn’t make the top twenty. Dugan specifically says that 30 of this year’s nominees were added by the committees despite not cutting Academy voting. She also says that one of this year’s nominees for Song of the Year was voted 18th place in the category, but was able to parlay that into a nomination because he or she served on the Song of the Year nominating committee, despite being a contender.Dugan only explained on category, there’s probably a hell lot more of tea coming from the other 83 categories.Grammys is not about music quality anymore.The Thing is that as you could see when Billie Ellish picked up awards that evening, Billie Ellish said during the Song Of The Year Speech that “so many deserve this, I’m sorry”. Some People have even stated/noticed that Billie Ellish seemed uncomfortable accepting the award and on the Album of the year acceptance speech she said: “I think Ariana deserves it”. I felt bad for Billie Ellish, despite her sweeping 5 Grammys in one night and just at the age of 18, I think she knows by now that the GRAMMYs are rigged from top to bottom and that this award was supposed to go to someone else, so it explains why she probably seemed so uncomfortable winning the awards.I think Billie Ellish deserved all 5 Grammys.Another thing is that this voting process involves those shady label executives. Yes, when you thought the Korean entertainment companies and broadcasters are shady enough, here comes the shady American labels.BTS’s American label is Columbia Records.Because artist under Columbia records has managed to get nominations for the major categories, Columbia probably did not push BTS to the front line for the nominations because they probably felt like it would not cut.The Snubbing and all the Controversies don’t stop there.During the 2017 Grammys awards when Adele received the award for Album of the Year, she said: “If you’re of the opinion that Lemonade was the better album, you’re not alone”. Adele also said “she could not possibly accept the award”, During the acceptance, Adele broke the speaker of the gramophone award and it’s unclear whether it was an accident or a purposeful show of solidarity with Beyonce.(This should be an Adele Appreciation moment)(Note: The Grammy award that the recipient receives on stage is a prop, the real one gets mailed to them months later).Ariana Grande won Best Pop vocal album at the 2019 Grammys in February but did not officially receive the award until July 2019:Back to the snubbing.BEYONCE - LEMONADE - COLUMBIA/PARKWOOD - 9.0/10 (OUT OF 33 REVIEWS)ADELE - 25 - XL - 7.2/10 (OUT OF 36 REVIEWS)Don’t you see the difference?Beyonce should have won Album of the year, so this incident concludes that Beyonce got snubbed.This is not the first time such stuff has happened.The Recording Academy has quite a history of snubbing.Believe it or not, there is a whole section on the Wikipedia page of the Grammys regarding their controversies.Quotes from some of the attendees/nominees and winners in the past decades:"I don't know what this means. I don't think it means anything." - Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam’s acceptance speech for Best Hard Rock Performance 1996.“I think the Grammys are nothing more than some gigantic promotional machine for the music industry. They cater to a low intellect and they feed the masses. They don't honor the arts or the artist for what he created. It's the music business celebrating itself. That's basically what it's all about” - Maynard James Keenan of Tool in a 2002 interview“The major nominations for the 54th annual awards clearly show that the recording academy has been working overtime to be all-inclusive, but more significantly, they also reveal a deep chasm between its goals and the listening habits of the general population... [T]he focus is still on the old music industry model of cash-cow hits, major label investments, and commercial radio...” - Los Angeles Times Journalist Randall Roberts in 2011"It's really hard to accept this award. There's so much talent out here [...] and there's a lot of talent that's not here tonight. It's also hard to accept because you know, when I started to make songs I did it for the inherent reward of making songs, so I'm a little bit uncomfortable up here." - Justin Vernon of Bon Iver during the 2012 Grammys.There are a lot more, I could go on for longer.As you have seen above, this is not a new thing, it has been going on for decades.As the years passed by and as the controversies kept on piling up, Grammys lost its prestigious trademark and Grammys had just seemed like any other award show and not the recording industry's most prestigious award.And it’s the website says: A GRAMMY is awarded by The Recording Academy's voting membership to honor excellence in the recording arts and sciences.That’s a joke.Don’t even get me started about racism in the Grammys, there’s a whole Wikipedia page for it.Since the inception of the Grammy Awards in 1957 on 10 black artists have won the Album of the year award. Past 62 Grammys and only 10 black artists winning album of the year, is this a joke? because if it is, it’s not funny.Multiple black/African-American artists have been snubbed like can someone from the recording academy give me a fucking reason why Kendrick Lamar’s Damn did not win the Album of the Year in 2018.Damn was critically acclaimed of 2018 with 9.2/10 out of 38 reviews, yet Grammys won’t give a fuck about the fact that this album exists and just gives it a nod. Damn deserves more than just a nod.During the 2016 Grammys, Taylor Swift took home the award for the album of the year with her album “1989”. “1989” received a 7.6/10 out of 26 reviews and it was the 15th best-reviewed album of 2014.Kendrick Lamar was given a nod for the award for his 2015 album “To Pimp a Butterfly”, This was the critically acclaimed album of 2015 coming at 9.5/10 out of 39 reviews, yet did not win.Beyonce’s album Beyonce was rated at 8.4/10 out of 28 reviews and it was a fan-favorite, Beyonce’s fans lost their shit when she lost against Beck’s Morning Phase which had a 7.8/10 out of 38 reviews.Beyonce had the best-rated album of the nominees for the Album of the Year 2015, yet she did not take the award home.There, I have named 3 black/African American artist who has been snubbed of the award “Album of The Year” and I cannot even imagine how many artists have been snubbed in the other categories.Grammys is also kinda biased towards American/British awards, which states how foreign artists are basically “least-luckier” to take home an award. The Last time a non-American or non - British artist took home one of the major awards of the night was Alessia Cara She’s Canadian) in 2018 for “best new artist”.Out of the 94 awards that were handed out just recently at the 2020 Grammys:At least 60–70 of those went to American artists.I could spend forever talking about this, but I don’t have the time to do so.To sum up the “Is Grammys rigged?” part: Grammys is biased toward American/British artists, the voting committee of this “so-called” PrEsTigeOus award is made out of aging white men who will probably won’t accept other types of artists, this recording academy is sexist, the Shady label executives are involved and this won’t change unless they completely restructure and become more transparent towards the audience.Moving on to the GRAMMY’S IS USING BTS Part.There have so far have not been any concrete proof that BTS boosts the views of GRAMMYs but many ARMYs have stated that Grammys is using to boost BTS to boost the views of the awards:This is for the past 10 or so years.VIEWERSHIP FOR THE GRAMMYS:[2020 - 18.7 MILLION|2019 - 19.9 MILLION|2018 - 19.8 MILLION|2017 - 26.07 MILLION|2016 - 24.9 MILLION|2015 - 25.3 MILLION|2014 - 28.5 MILLION|2013 - 28.3 MILLION|2012 - 40 MILLION|2011 - 26.6 MILLION]The possible reasons for the decline in viewership of this awards show are probably due to the fact is there is always that bunch of fans who will only tune in if their faves win or get to perform.After all the controversies, rigged scandals, and all the other shit that goes on in the recording academy, NFL Stadium-selling acts, Multi-Platinum artists have decided to “leave the chat”, some have shown a lack of interest in tuning in and also end up “leaving the chat”.The thing that annoys me is that some ARMYs are calling the academy “racist” (well, they kinda were anyways) for not giving them a nod when I have clearly explained above that they don’t have enough points to secure them a spot on the nominee's list and then when GRAMMYs gives you airtime, you say they are using BTS for clout.I don’t get it.It is not exactly necessary that you have to get a nod to perform, though in most cases you do, due to the “tight” time of the awards show they do a lot of collab stages (probably to squeeze everyone into a certain amount of time) and normally artists at max. perform two full songs or a couple of songs in a medley.The reason why some believe that GRAMMYs are using BTS for clout is due to BTS’s popularity not just on social media but on a global scale, BTS performing at the GRAMMYs could have possibly brought in some of the fandoms in for that night’s ceremony and it expands the GRAMMYs audience to the K-pop realm.But as I have previously mentioned, we have no concrete proof that BTS increased the viewership of the show.Broadcasters using BTS for possible clout is nothing new, BTS is the most popular boy band currently and the “power of BTS” is unpredictable. this can explain why Korean Broadcasters give than 20 minutes + on award shows just on performance ALONE (I still hate u, SBS for what happened to Wendy).——————————————————————————————————————WILL BTS EVER WIN A GRAMMY?This is an interesting one, I have to be honest with you idol boy groups and girl groups have never really been ever taken seriously by western audiences.I happen to be a Former One Direction Fan but I hopped onto the fandom too late, just months after being a fan, they kinda broke up.The Beatles are probably one of the only groups recognized by the GRAMMYs and they have won 9 Grammys up to date.Some people but these groups as a phase that people go through.Some regard BTS as a trend that will last only a few years before it goes downhill.Many call them legends.If black artists are still struggling with diversity in music. A Kpop group ain’t going to get the racist and sexist people of the recording academy to change their minds.If only BTS scores enough points to get them a grammy then, yes they’re getting on. I’m currently believing that the GRAMMYs is kinda scared of the Fandom, Some BTS ARMYs have chased away journalists, harassing the females around them, non-stop criticizing everyone, calling out and boycotting every single award show which doesn't give BTS a win or a nod rigged (In some cases that’s kinda true), being toxic at some times (only the toxic ones, the rest of us are quite chill and fine).I think MAMA is scared of the fandom, which explains why they got to full sweep all the categories they were eligible for, some have stated that the Best Dance Performance for a Male Group should have gone to SEVENTEEN or GOT7 but only ended up in the hands of BTS because MAMA is scared of the fandom.Honestly, they could have cut the Best Pop Vocal Album for the GRAMMYs but the only reason they didn't cut the nominees' list is probably that Grammys will know that some ARMYs will ultimately lose their shit if they lose, and then the internet will just be chaos.BTS may be able to win a GRAMMY, who knows?But only if the aged white racist males of the recording academy will ever acknowledge a South Korean boy group.I know this sounds as random as **** but why wasn’t mono submitted for the rap category, I mean, it’s so good.——————————————————————————————————————BTS SOLO STAGE AT THE GRAMMYS:An inside joke within the fandom is what Yoongi wants is what yoongi gets.Believe or not Suga has said he wanted quite a few things to happen and it actually comes true.From Charting No.1 on the BB200, Playing out Japanese Domes, Winning Daesangs, Triple Crowns, Performing at award shows, Performing at the Seoul Olympic Stadium to going to the GRAMMYs just to name a few.Suga said himself that he wants a solo BTS stage, well what Suga wants is what suga gets.——————————————————————————————————————IT’S NOT JUST THE GRAMMYS:The other counterparts are also pretty shady as well, Let's not even get started on the Oscars, American Music Awards, and Billboard Music Awards may seem clean on the surface but no one knows what actually goes behind the stage. Korean music shows are pretty shady as well, it’s all about the entertainment companies.It’s just people call GRAMMYs racist because they are based in the states, but in the Korean award shows it's another hot mess.——————————————————————————————————————FINAL PART:This Recording Academy has problems that need to be solved.If BTS never wins a GRAMMY, there is absolutely nothing to be upset about, there are tons of things BTS has done to be proud of, you can start naming them now. One single piece of metal does not define who BTS is, it's a lot more than that.“But my point is you've already won if you have people singing your songs word for word if you're a hero in your hometown. Look, if there are people who have regular jobs who are coming out in the rain, in the snow, spending their hard-earned money to buy tickets to come to your shows, you don't need this right here. I promise you, you already won." - DrakeGrammys is opinion based not factual-based.-I came back after they got a Grammy nod, I wonder if they’ll win.

Are REM phases during midday naps as good as the night ones?

SIGNIFICANCEThis paper demonstrates that typical children have enhanced learning of new words across sleep periods (naps) which is linked to the amount of time in rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and shows sleep-dependent learning losses in an atypically developing group of children with REM deficits (e.g., Down syndrome). The work yields both medical and theoretical impacts by (i) highlighting a modifiable mechanism of intellectual disability in Down syndrome that has not been described before and (ii) emphasizing the important role of REM sleep in children’s learning.Keywords: naps, sleep, memory, development, Down syndromeGo to:ABSTRACTSleep is recognized as a physiological state associated with learning, with studies showing that knowledge acquisition improves with naps. Little work has examined sleep-dependent learning in people with developmental disorders, for whom sleep quality is often impaired. We examined the effect of natural, in-home naps on word learning in typical young children and children with Down syndrome (DS). Despite similar immediate memory retention, naps benefitted memory performance in typical children but hindered performance in children with DS, who retained less when tested after a nap, but were more accurate after a wake interval. These effects of napping persisted 24 h later in both groups, even after an intervening overnight period of sleep. During naps in typical children, memory retention for object-label associations correlated positively with percent of the time in rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. However, in children with DS, a population with reduced REM, learning was impaired, but only after the nap. This finding shows that a nap can increase memory loss in a subpopulation, highlighting that naps are not universally beneficial. Further, in healthy preschooler’s naps, processes in REM sleep may benefit learning.In our productivity-driven society, the benefits of sleep for our long-term health and new learning are often ignored. The capacity of a full night’s sleep or short naps to improve learning has been observed in healthy adults (1–3), infants, and preschoolers (4–6). While considerable evidence indicates that sleep promotes active memory consolidation (7), theories also suggest that sleep facilitates memory stabilization by reducing the impact of overactive synapses through synaptic downscaling (8). Studies investigating the relationship between napping and memory consolidation have focused primarily on healthy groups, raising the question of whether naps are always beneficial across populations. Indeed, napping’s universal utility is a current debate. The potential for cognitive benefits through naps is an open question as the neural processes involved in sleep and memory formation can differ throughout healthy development and in individuals with developmental disorders (9–11).In this study, we assessed whether children with Down syndrome (DS, trisomy 21), a condition associated with sleep disorders, receive the same benefits from daytime naps as typically developing (TD) children (4, 6). DS is the most common genetic form of intellectual disability (12) that carries a unique cognitive profile characterized by cognitive deficits, language difficulties (13), and hippocampal-dependent memory deficits (14, 15). Despite decades of research characterizing the cognitive profile of DS, the role of disturbed sleep in cognitive deficits is largely unexplored in this population.What physiological processes allow the sleep experienced while napping to be beneficial? Both rapid eye movement (REM) and non-REM (NREM) stages of sleep contribute to the consolidation of nascent material (7, 16–18). NREM 3 (N3, slow-wave) sleep orchestrates hippocampal–neocortical dialogue and information transfer (19, 20). Recent work sheds new light on the importance of REM sleep as well (16, 21, 22), with NREM and REM potentially working in concert to facilitate learning. DS provides an interesting condition to examine the effects of sleep disturbance due to well-replicated REM disruptions in the context of broader sleep impairments, including sleep apnea (23).We investigated word learning across naps and periods of wakefulness in preschoolers with and without DS. Our aims were: (i) to examine how preschoolers with DS learn after naps compared with TD children and (ii) to relate sleep parameters to learning outcomes. To measure learning, we assessed the retention of new words (auditory labels for novel visual stimuli) across different intervals, with one interval containing a nap. Each child was tested on novel word learning in three counterbalanced, within-subject conditions: (i) 5-min delay, (ii) wake, and (iii) sleep (Fig. 1A). In the 5-min delay condition, children received the recognition test 5 min after the training phase, whereas in the wake and sleep conditions, children were tested after 4 h as well as 24 h later to examine long-term retention. Sleep physiology was assessed with nap polysomnography (PSG).An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.Object name is pnas.1811488115fig01.jpgOpen in a separate windowFig. 1.Protocol design and behavioral results. (A) Protocol design and object-label association task. Each child was tested with an object-label pairing task in three counterbalanced, within-subject conditions separated by 1–2 wk: (i) immediate, (ii) wake, and (iii) sleep. Every condition included two phases: training and test. During the training phase, children were exposed to three novel object-label mappings and three novel unlabeled distractors, trained to a set criterion (four out of six correct trials, 66.7%). Both 4- and 24-h tests included six trials. (B) Training: Number of repetitions required to meet the criterion in children with DS (in blue) and TD toddlers (in red). (C) Test: Retention performance on the object–word association task across the immediate, wake, and sleep conditions. *We found a group × condition type interaction at the 4-h and 24-h delays (see Results and SI Appendix).Go to:RESULTSBehavioral analyses were conducted in 25 children with DS [52% female; mean (SD) age = 54.16 (9.49) mo] and 24 TD children [54% female; mean age = 33.38 (5.05) mo]. Groups were equivalent on basic cognitive scales and background factors (SI Appendix, Table S1). Despite equivalent retention at 5 min (Fig. 1B and SI Appendix, Table S2; P = 0.39, alpha Holm–Bonferroni adjusted for six comparisons), groups differed across the wake and nap conditions at 4 h [Fig. 1C; significant group × condition interaction, F(1, 47) = 74.68, P < 0.001, P adjusted = 0.006]. The DS group retained less than the TD group when tested after sleep (P < 0.001; d = 2.57, P adjusted = 0.006), but were more accurate in the wake condition (P < 0.001; d = −1.28, P adjusted = 0.006). While the TD group demonstrated a benefit from the nap (P < 0.001, P adjusted = 0.006), children with DS were significantly more accurate after wake than following a nap (P < 0.001, P adjusted = 0.006), with the same pattern of significance 24 h later (SI Appendix, Table S2).While exploratory analyses showed total nap time and sleep onset latency did not differ across the groups (SI Appendix, Table S3), children with DS spent significantly less time in REM sleep (P = 0.01, Holm–Bonferroni adjusted for four comparisons, P = 0.04), consistent with the past literature. The 44.44% of the group with DS vs. 5.9% of the TD group failed to enter into REM. The percentage of time spent in other sleep stages did not differ between groups (Fig. 2A). We examined group differences in EEG power-density spectra in each sleep stage normalized for overall EEG power (relative power). Bootstrap tests (24) found that the DS group had reduced relative power in lower N3 delta, from 2.0 to 3.0 Hz (see Fig. 2B).An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.Object name is pnas.1811488115fig02.jpgOpen in a separate windowFig. 2.Sleep architecture and power spectra in children with DS and TD toddlers. (A) Sleep architecture in children with DS and TD toddlers. Using a t-test we showed that children with DS spent significantly fewer minutes in REM sleep (Holm–Bonferroni adjusted for four comparisons, P = 0.04). (B) Relative EEG power from 0.2 to 32 Hz at 0.2-Hz resolution for each stage for children with DS (blue line) and the TD controls (red). Bootstrapped tests found that the DS group had reduced relative power in N3 delta, from 2.0 to 3.0 Hz, P < 0.001.SI Appendix, Table S4 shows the correlations between sleep architecture and retention in both groups at 4 and 24 h. The groups did differ in the correlation between % REM and retention at 4 h in the nap condition (z = −2.57, P = 0.01, P adjusted = 0.04), but no other tests of the differences of correlation were significant at 4 h (Fig. 3). In other exploratory analyses, we found that sleep spindle density, wake after sleep onset, and oxygen level (SaO2) did not relate to word recognition after sleep in either group.An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.Object name is pnas.1811488115fig03.jpgFig. 3.Associations between retention and sleep variables. Correlations between the percent of time spent in REM sleep and retention after the sleep period at the 4-h delay. Using Fisher’s z tests of differences in correlations we showed that the groups did differ in the correlation between % REM and retention at 4 h (P adjusted = 0.04).Go to:DISCUSSIONIn this study, we trained children to learn novel words across intervals containing a nap and wake. Using measures of sleep physiology collected in their home environment, we investigated how sleep quality, architecture, and quantitative EEG power during the nap related to retention. First, we found that naps function differently across different populations. Specifically, while naps were beneficial for long-term retention in TD children, they were detrimental in children with DS. This study demonstrates a nap-dependent learning deficit in a subpopulation of participants. This result has implications for the design of treatment protocols that affect learning and memory in children with DS. Second, our findings match other recent work suggesting a role for REM sleep in verbal learning.Typically developing children benefit from the nap, but they are prone to substantial interference or memory decay during periods of wake at both 5-min and 4-h delays. This result adds to a growing literature linking sleep with declarative knowledge acquisition, including word learning (1, 24, 25). In the TD group only, 4-h retention of the object-label association correlated with increased time in REM, consistent with previous studies indicating a role of REM sleep in the consolidation of language-related learning (17, 21, 25). Our results indicate that REM is also important for the active consolidation of new arbitrary labels. While REM plays a role in general neural development, it has been more recently implicated in the process of consolidating and integrating new information into existing networks (26). While our method of in-home data collection may have allowed for more natural naps and increased % REM in children, our findings should be replicated in larger samples.An unexpected finding was that children with DS retained more at 4 and 24 h if they remained awake in the 4 h after training than if they napped, relative to TD children. In other words, memory performance in DS, but not in TD children, decreased if they napped, and this loss was not recovered with nighttime sleep. Furthermore, we observed that DS children expressed a reduction in REM sleep.What mechanisms could lead to learning loss in DS across a nap? First, sleep has been suggested to contribute to active consolidation as well as synaptic downscaling (8). Given that the group with DS shows nap-dependent memory loss, one candidate mechanism could be excessive synaptic downscaling. However, this explanation seems unlikely, given that the children in the DS group with a higher percentage of N3, the stage considered to be most important for downscaling, showed a nonsignificant positive correlation to retain more at 4 h than children with lower percentages of N3 (SI Appendix, Table S5). An alternative mechanism that could explain our results is that synaptic remodeling must take place within the hippocampus during REM to accurately retain these associations. The hippocampus plays a central role in coordinating system-wide reactivation, and DS is a condition associated with hippocampal impairment and dysfunction. Specifically, mouse models of DS show less input from dentate gyrus, overactive but less discriminant activity in CA3, and poorer place field stability over time (27). Dentate gyrus and CA3 subfields serve pattern separation and completion, and children with DS show deficits in spatial and temporal pattern separation (28). Therefore, one speculation is that the hippocampal circuit replays errant and nonspecific activity patterns during sleep in DS, which, in turn, interferes with memory consolidation, as previously has been suggested might be the outcome of poor hippocampal representations (29). While our data suggest that learning in the nap was an important factor for long-term retention, more work must examine if the processes operating in naps also extend to nighttime sleep.In general, more work is needed to understand the impact of reduced REM in naps and nighttime sleep in the light of recent findings describing links between REM and learning. Specifically, while our data suggest that REM may be important in naps, other work has suggested that the combination of NREM and sufficient amounts of REM are required to influence learning, with entry into brief intervals of REM actually impairing learning (30). Our data suggest that greater proportions of REM are beneficial in typical children, but the numbers of children who had NREM but no REM sleep are too few to determine any thresholds for learning based on the amount of REM in DS. In total, our current findings suggest a sleep-dependent loss of learning in a population with reduced REM sleep in naps, highlighting an important role for REM in young children’s memory retention.These findings lay the groundwork for future investigations of sleep and learning is widely available and well-characterized rodent models of DS. Stemming from basic science with animal models, potential pharmacological interventions for supporting cognitive development in children with DS have emerged. Little attention has been paid to the role of sleep in moderating treatment outcomes in this group. Our data suggest that sleep should be taken seriously as an important source of variability when considering pharmacotherapies and behavioral interventions, and therapeutic approaches to sleep disturbances should be expanded in at-risk pediatric groups such as DS (27, 31).Our data show that naps benefit knowledge acquisition in young TD children, but not in children with DS. Further, naps should be long enough to allow entry into sufficient REM sleep to be of the full benefit. In children with DS, the picture may be different, as our data indicate that naps result in knowledge loss. These findings provide a unique perspective on the underlying mechanisms of this common intellectual disability and suggest that the sleep profile must be carefully considered in future work.Go to:MATERIALS AND METHODSParticipants.A total of 66 children were contacted through local and parent organizations and advertisement in the Tucson and Phoenix areas, Arizona. A total of 16 children (11 DS, 5 TD, proportion completed vs. noncompleted not significantly different across groups) [Χ2 (1, 51) = 1.34, P = 0.25] did not end up participating after recruitment for reasons that included (i) difficulty engaging in the initial testing session and (ii) parent cancelation. Of the 50 children who completed the behavioral protocols across all sessions, 25 were children with DS (13 female; mean age = 54.16 mo, SD = 9.49; range = 41–84 mo). DS (trisomy 21) was verified by karyotype report or medical records. The mean Leiter-3 nonverbal IQ (standard score) was 86.52 ± 11.52 (range = 63–108). Exclusion criteria included the presence of mosaicism and autism spectrum disorder diagnosis. Participants with DS had equivalent nonverbal IQ raw scores to a group of TD children based on the Leiter-3. The control group in this study consisted of 25 TD children (mean age = 33.38 mo, SD = 5.05, range = 26–50 mo) recruited through contact with public parent organizations and advertisement. Children without DS were screened before enrollment to rule out: language delays, neurological conditions, or autism spectrum disorder. We tested 25 TD children, but one child was removed from the analysis due to poor attention during the task session. There were no significant differences between the two groups in total nonverbal summary score on the Leiter-3 [t (47) = −0.93, P = 0.36]. Despite age differences resulting from a mental age-matching approach, both groups had equivalent background factors, including gender, body mass index (BMI), ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SI Appendix, Table S1). We included children who habitually napped (4–7 naps per week), given previous findings showing long-term sleep-dependent benefits only in habitual nappers (6).Procedure.All procedures were approved by the University of Arizona Biomedical Institutional Review Board, and informed consent was obtained from all parents. Participants were tested in their homes in a location with minimal distractions. Each child was tested with an object-label pairing task in three counterbalanced, within-subject conditions separated by 1–2 wk: (i) 5-min delay, (ii) test after wake, and (iii) test after a nap (sleep condition). Every condition included two phases: training and test. During training, children were asked to play a computer game to become an astronaut on a mission to Mars to find new toys. For each condition (5-min delay, wake, and sleep), children were exposed to three novel object-label mappings and three novel unlabeled distractors, resulting in a total of nine target objects and nine distractors. Each object was presented for 11 s paired with either the recording “Look! A dake. Touch the dake. Wow! A dake!” if it was a target object, or with “Hey! Look at that! Touch that. Cool! Look at that” if it was a distractor. Language included “exclamation, touch, exclamation” with the exclamations (“Look!,” “Wow!,” “Cool!,” “Hey, look!”) chosen randomly. After presenting the objects, children were tested immediately after the training using the method described for the test phase (see below). To eliminate encoding differences as the source of any consolidation differences, we equated baseline learning in both groups by training each to a set criterion (four out of six correct trials, 66.67%). If children did not reach the criterion after one block of training they participated in additional blocks of training.In the test phase, children were prompted to point to the target object (i.e., “Which one is the dake? Point to the dake!”) from among four possibilities: the target-labeled object, a previously labeled object to test if the selection reflected recognition of the specific label–object association, and two distractors to prevent children from choosing based solely on familiarity. Children received six trials of a four-choice forced alternative recognition test presented with quadrant position of each object randomized on each trial. In the 5-min delay condition, children received the recognition test 5 min after the training phase, whereas in the wake and nap conditions, children were tested after 4 h as well as 24 h later to examine long-term retention. While the 5-min delay condition was always completed during the first week, wake and nap were counterbalanced (12 participants with DS and 12 TD toddlers were tested with the “5min-Wake-Nap” order and 13 participants with DS and 12 TD toddlers with the “5min-Nap-Wake” order). For the sleep condition, participants were scheduled about 1 h before the usual naptime, and after the training, a home-based sleep study was performed. In the wake condition, training was administered at a time when the participant did not usually nap to avoid sleep deprivation effects. Mock sensor placements were also attempted. Some participants were scheduled in the morning before the nap and others after the nap to control for time-of-day effects on learning (32).The time of the training was similar across conditions and groups, ruling out circadian effects. To control for baseline differences on the object-label task, we calculated the adjusted change in recognition at 4- and 24-h delays relative to the baseline performance at training [(delayed − baseline)/baseline] (6, 33). Behavioral ratings of attention were assessed at encoding and at the 24-h delay test with an experimenter-rated scale from 1 to 5 (5 equal to higher levels of attention) to control for potential differences in attention between the wake and the nap delays. The same ratings were also used to measure sleepiness before the encoding phase and at the 4-h delay in a subsample of children (DS = 10 and TD = 6). This measure was introduced to control for confounding factors linked to the nap period that might influence performance on the task (e.g., sleep inertia, reduced fatigue).Stimuli.Pictures of novel objects, chosen to be relatively different from one another, were matched with nonword labels, in which neighborhood size (34) and phone frequency were controlled (35). Children were tested on consonant–vowel–consonant (CVC) labels, the most representative of the structure of English. The following labels were used for set 1: dake, tobe, peen; set 2: wame, be, need; and set 3: tade, doke, meep. Two versions of the task were used in this study, such that distractors in version 1 were used as target objects in version 2, and vice versa. As a result, labels were associated with different target objects in the two versions to control for some objects being more memorable than others. Ten participants with DS and 13 TD toddlers were randomly assigned to version 1, whereas 15 participants with DS and 11 TD toddlers received version 2. The administration order was randomized across conditions to avoid pairing one condition with the same stimuli version across participants (e.g., version 1 was paired with the nap condition for one child and with the wake condition for another child).Assessment of Nap Physiology.Home-based polysomnography.All children underwent polysomnography (PSG) in their homes with the experimenter attending to maximize participant compliance (Compumedics Some PSG system Compumedics USA, Inc.). We conducted our nap assessments in-home in both TD children and children with DS, allowing for as natural an examination of naps and learning as possible. Very few studies have examined the underlying mechanisms of nap-dependent learning in young children, and often the sleep physiology has been conducted in a laboratory setting, which may limit the acquisition of natural naps containing REM (36). The feasibility of ambulatory PSG has been extensively documented in special populations such as individuals with DS (37, 38) and children with autism spectrum disorder (39) as well as in typically developing young children as early as 2 y (40, 41). Ambulatory PSG is by nature less intrusive for children and their families, and sleep quality is better compared with laboratory polysomnography (42, 43).PSG was conducted during the nap in 18 children with DS and 17 TD toddlers. Mock PSG, including the placement of a few electrodes and exposure to the leads, was conducted during the wake interval. By the International 10–20 system (44), our PSG recording included EEG (sampled at 250 Hz) at central derivations (C3/A2, C4/A1), two electrooculogram channels (EOG), and two electromyogram channels (EMG). The presence of sleep disturbances was evaluated with thoracic and abdominal displacement (inductive plethysmography bands) and a finger pulse oximeter (Nonin 8000J Series Flex SpO2 Sensor; Nonin Medical, Inc.). Pulse oximetry alone has been used to assess sleep-disordered breathing as one alternative of PSG in young children (45), and a 3% oxygen desaturation index may be used as an estimate of the severity of OSA (46). Sleep was visually scored by a registered polysomnographic technologist according to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine standard criteria, taking into account specific recommendations for pediatric sleep (40). Sleep spindles were visually identified on the C3 and C4 channels by a registered sleep technologist blind to the group membership (TD vs. DS) according to the following criteria: bursts of 12–15 Hz EEG that lasted at least 0.5 s.Power spectral analyses were based on the central EEG lead C4 because more children retained C4 across the nap. Files were coded for artifact using visual inspection: epochs including bad EEG channels, arousals, or excessive movement were excluded. A Fast Fourier transform was applied using the spectrogram function in Matlab, with a 5-s Hamming window to provide power spectral densities (in µV2). We used a data-driven bootstrapping approach (independent samples in SPSS; 5,000 samples with a 95% confidence interval) to examine group differences in EEG power-density spectra across the entire frequency range (0.6–32 Hz) normalized for overall EEG power (relative power) in each sleep stage. Individual 0.2-Hz bands were examined across this range. Only significant bands surrounded by two other significant bands were included and were considered significant at P < 0.001. In previous uses of this technique, multiple comparisons were considered to be controlled because of focus on concurrently significant bands, but here we also report only findings meeting a significance threshold of P < 0.001 (47). We also examined the relationship between learning and power using a priori defined bands of interest in the delta band in N3 (commonly referred to as slow-wave activity, SWA; 1–4.5 Hz).Actigraphy.Children wore the Actiwatch 2 (Actiwatch 2; Phillips Respironics Mini-Mitter) for at least five consecutive nights on their non-dominant wrist (one TD participant was excluded due to not reaching the five-night actigraphy minimum), and parents completed a 1-wk sleep log. Parents were instructed to document all periods of the participant’s sleep, including naps and overnight sleep, sleep location, and periods of time when the watch was taken off. The completed sleep log was then used to supplement the analysis of the actigraphy data. Light and activity data were collected in 30-s epochs and analyzed using the Philips Actiware 6.0.2 software packaging (Respironics Actiware 6.0.2). Data were scored using a medium sensitivity (40 activity CPM), with sleep onset and sleep end marked by a period of 3 and 5 min of immobility or more, respectively (48). Epochs detected to have activity counts greater than the medium sensitivity threshold were considered periods of the wake, and those below the threshold were considered periods of sleep. Actigraphy data from all overnight sleep and naps in the sleep condition were analyzed for each subject. Variables of interest were sleep efficiency (SE), sleep duration, sleep fragmentation index (FI; measured as the percentage of sleep considered to be restless due to consistent physical movement), and wake after sleep onset (WASO; the number of minutes awake during a sleep period).Descriptive Measures.After completing the 24-h test delay of the object-label pairing task, participants were assessed on the Leiter International Performance Scale, Third Edition (49). Due to its nonverbal administration, this assessment is often used to assess fluid intelligence in individuals with speech or hearing impairments as well as cognitive delays and has been previously validated in DS (50). To obtain a nonverbal IQ score we administered five cognitive scales including sequential order, form completion, classification and analogies, figure-ground, and matching/repeated patterns. The outcome measure employed in this study was the sum of the five subtests, which was used to match children with DS and the TD group.Statistical Analyses.All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 24.0 (IBM Corp.). The distributional properties of each measure (e.g., normality) were examined. We tested if groups were homogenous for descriptive variables such as gender, IQ, and socioeconomic status using χ2 tests for dichotomous outcomes, t-tests for continuous and normally distributed outcomes, and the Mann–Whitney U test for nonparametric outcomes. To test if groups performed similarly at baseline, we performed a repeated-measures ANOVA for both wake and nap conditions. We then examined group differences in the delayed recognition by performing a 2 × 2 ANOVA with condition type (wake-delay vs. nap-delay) as the repeated factor and group (DS vs. TD) as the between-subjects factor. These analyses were conducted at both 4- and 24-h delays. If an interaction was found, individual group differences in the wake and nap conditions were analyzed using planned comparisons based on hypotheses generated from past work (t-tests; Holm–Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons and was adjusted for the six behavioral tests).To identify sleep-related factors that might be driving these effects, we first conducted group comparisons on sleep outcome variables derived from polysomnography recorded during the nap by using a t-test for normally distributed outcomes and a Mann–Whitney U test for nonnormal outcomes. Based on expectations of sleep-stage differences from our previous work (51), P values were Holm–Bonferroni-corrected for four comparisons. Group differences in the EEG power-density spectra were examined using bootstrapped independent-sample t-tests, which were considered significant at P < 0.001 (47). Associations between relevant sleep physiology variables and retention of the object–word association at 4 and 24 h were examined with Pearson’s correlations. Fisher’s z tests of differences in correlations were conducted to determine if relations between sleep parameters (% REM and N3 delta) and learning differed in DS and TD. These comparisons were Holm–Bonferroni-corrected for a family of four tests. Finally, to determine the relationship between sleep disruption and learning in the DS population, we compared children with DS with differences in sleep quality [DS poor sleep (PS) and DS good sleep (GS)] using analyses of variance (ANOVAs). In the supplemental analyses, we evaluate effects with familywise Bonferroni correction per section given the exploratory nature of those additional analyses. For instance, given the importance of examining sleep across several parameters in additional exploratory tests, we applied Holm–Bonferroni’s P-value correction to seven group comparisons (i.e., sleep onset latency, sleep efficiency, total sleep time, arousal index, average SaO2 desaturation, WASO, and N2 sleep spindle density; SI Appendix, Table S3).

People Want Us

It's definitely one of the most user friendly forms out there. Free version is robust, but paid version is affordable, unlocking more great features. In a matter of minutes, create professional forms that can be integrated into emails and websites. You can accept payments as well.

Justin Miller