Functional differences in cerebral activation between slow wave-coupled and uncoupled sleep spindles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spindles are often temporally coupled to slow waves (SW). These SW-spindle complexes have been implicated in memory consolidation that involves transfer of information from the hippocampus to the neocortex. However, spindles and SW, which are characteristic of NREM sleep, can occur as part of this complex, or in isolation. It is not clear whether dissociable parts of the brain are recruited when coupled to SW vs. when spindles or SW occur in isolation. Here, we tested differences in cerebral activation time-locked to uncoupled spindles, uncoupled SW and coupled SW-spindle complexes using simultaneous EEG-fMRI. Consistent with the “active system model,” we hypothesized that brain activations time-locked to coupled SW-spindles would preferentially occur in brain areas known to be critical for sleep-dependent memory consolidation. Our results show that coupled spindles and uncoupled spindles recruit distinct parts of the brain. Specifically, we found that hippocampal activation during sleep is not uniquely related to spindles. Rather, this process is primarily driven by SWs and SW-spindle coupling. In addition, we show that SW-spindle coupling is critical in the activation of the putamen. Importantly, SW-spindle coupling specifically recruited frontal areas in comparison to uncoupled spindles, which may be critical for the hippocampal-neocortical dialogue that preferentially occurs during sleep.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".