MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800772792 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsy061.085

0086 Sleep Preferentially Enhances Memory For A Cognitive Strategy But Not The Implicit Motor Skills Needed To Acquire It

2018· article· en· W2800772792 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionPsychologyProcedural memoryTask (project management)Cognitive psychologyMotor learningMemory consolidationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSleep (system call)Elementary cognitive taskEye movementAudiologyNeuroscienceComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sleep is beneficial for consolidation of both “cognitive procedural memory” (CPM) and “simple procedural memory” (SPM). CPM involves the acquisition of a novel cognitive strategy through the execution of a series of motor movements. By contrast, SPM involves motor skills learning of a cognitively simple sequence of movements. Sleep has been implicated in the consolidation of implicit CPM, whereas the role of sleep in implicit SPM remains unclear. The present study compared the differential benefit of sleep for CPM vs. implicit SPM consolidation. To disentangle and directly compare SPM to CPM, subjects were tested on: (1) the “classic” Tower of Hanoi task (ToH), where the solution requires the use of both recursive elements (i.e., a repetitive series of movements, thus involving SPM) and non-recursive elements (i.e., a non-repetitive series of movements that can only be learned by acquiring the underlying cognitive strategy, thus involving CPM); and (2) a “modified” version of the ToH, akin to the serial reaction time (SRT) task, designed to prevent the acquisition of a cognitive strategy, thus isolating the SPM component of the task. Participants (n=57) were trained on either the ToH or SRT, then retested on both tasks. Half were trained in the evening, retested after a night of sleep, and again after a day of wake (PM-AM-PM). The other half were counterbalanced (AM-PM-AM). The time taken to complete the ToH improved following sleep vs. wake from training to retest (F(2,52)=3.22,p=0.048), but not for the SRT (F(2,54)=0.324,p=0.725). Follow-up tests revealed that performance improved only for the ToH after sleep - and only after sleep - either immediately after training, or one day later. Moreover, sleep significantly enhanced the non-recursive elements but not the recursive elements of the ToH, but not the SRT. Sleep preferentially supported CPM, whereas implicit SPM improved regardless of sleep or wake. These results suggest sleep benefits the cognitive aspects of procedural memory, rather than strengthening implicitly acquired motor sequences involved to learn the strategy itself. N/A

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it