The ERP Old-New Effect: A Useful Indicator in Studying the Effects of Sleep on Memory Retrieval Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To verify that the classic "Old/New" memory effect can be detected after a long delay, and to investigate the differential influence of declarative memory processes after normal sleep and daytime wake. DESIGN: The protocol is a variation of a more traditional study-recognition test used in event-related potential (ERP) studies in which sleep or wake is inserted between the learning and recognition session in order to verify the existence of the Old/New effect (ie, positive shift that occurs when stimuli are repeated). ERPs were recorded during the recognition-test session. The protocol was based on early work that compared the effect of sleep on memory without recording sleep. SETTING: Data collection occurred in the outpatient sleep laboratory. PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS: Results from 13 subjects (6 men) aged between 21 and 39 years. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The subjects performed the recognition memory test after sleep and daytime wake periods. More-accurate performance for the old (studied) stimuli occurred after the sleep session. Analysis of variance on correctly answered reaction times revealed a significant effect of condition (old/new) with no difference across session. A repeated-measure analysis revealed differences in "Old/New" effect, whereby the amplitude difference between the old and new items was larger after sleep than after wake. CONCLUSIONS: This effect of sleep was found in early frontal and later posterior ERP components, processes that represent strategic, contextual processing and facilitation of episodic memory. Memory representation was not different across sessions. These findings suggest that sleep and wake facilitate 2 components of memory unequally, ie, episodic recognition and memory representation functioning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".