Sleep‐dependent consolidation of face recognition and its relationship to <scp>REM</scp> sleep duration, <scp>REM</scp> density and Stage 2 sleep spindles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Face recognition is a highly specialized capability that has implicit and explicit memory components. Studies show that learning tasks with facial components are dependent on rapid eye movement and non-rapid eye movement sleep features, including rapid eye movement sleep density and fast sleep spindles. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between sleep-dependent consolidation of memory for faces and partial rapid eye movement sleep deprivation, rapid eye movement density, and fast and slow non-rapid eye movement sleep spindles. Fourteen healthy participants spent 1 night each in the laboratory. Prior to bed they completed a virtual reality task in which they interacted with computer-generated characters. Half of the participants (REMD group) underwent a partial rapid eye movement sleep deprivation protocol and half (CTL group) had a normal amount of rapid eye movement sleep. Upon awakening, they completed a face recognition task that contained a mixture of previously encountered faces from the task and new faces. Rapid eye movement density and fast and slow sleep spindles were detected using in-house software. The REMD group performed worse than the CTL group on the face recognition task; however, rapid eye movement duration and rapid eye movement density were not related to task performance. Fast and slow sleep spindles showed differential relationships to task performance, with fast spindles being positively and slow spindles negatively correlated with face recognition. The results support the notion that rapid eye movement and non-rapid eye movement sleep characteristics play complementary roles in face memory consolidation. This study also raises the possibility that fast and slow spindles contribute in opposite ways to sleep-dependent memory consolidation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".