Eye movements during phasic versus tonic rapid eye movement sleep are biomarkers of dissociable electroencephalogram processes for the consolidation of novel problem-solving skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hallmark eye movement (EM) bursts that occur during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep are markers of consolidation for procedural memory involving novel cognitive strategies and problem-solving skills. Examination of the brain activity associated with EMs during REM sleep might elucidate the processes involved in memory consolidation, and may uncover the functional significance of REM sleep and EMs themselves. Participants performed a REM-dependent, novel procedural problem-solving task (i.e. the Tower of Hanoi; ToH) before and after intervals of either overnight sleep (n = 20) or a daytime 8-hour wake period (n = 20). In addition, event-related spectral perturbation of the electroencephalogram (EEG) time-locked to EMs occurring either in bursts (i.e. phasic REM), or in isolation (i.e. tonic REM), were compared to sleep on a non-learning control night. ToH improvement was greater following sleep compared to wakefulness. During sleep, prefrontal theta (~2-8 Hz) and central-parietal-occipital sensorimotor rhythm (SMR) activity (~8-16 Hz) time-locked to EMs, were greater on the ToH night versus control night, and during phasic REM sleep, were both positively correlated with overnight memory improvements. Furthermore, SMR power during tonic REM increased significantly from the control night to ToH night, but was relatively stable from night to night during phasic REM. These results suggest that EMs are markers of learning-related increases in theta and SMR during phasic and tonic REM sleep. Phasic and tonic REM sleep may be functionally distinct in terms of their contribution to procedural 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".