Targeted memory reactivation during post‐learning sleep does not enhance motor memory consolidation in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Targeted memory reactivation (TMR) during sleep enhances memory consolidation in young adults by modulating electrophysiological markers of neuroplasticity. Interestingly, older adults exhibit deficits in motor memory consolidation, an impairment that has been linked to age-related degradations in the same sleep features sensitive to TMR. We hypothesised that TMR would enhance consolidation in older adults via the modulation of these markers. A total of 17 older participants were trained on a motor task involving two auditory-cued sequences. During a post-learning nap, two auditory cues were played: one associated to a learned (i.e., reactivated) sequence and one control. Performance during two delayed re-tests did not differ between reactivated and non-reactivated sequences. Moreover, both associated and control sounds modulated brain responses, yet there were no consistent differences between the auditory cue types. Our results collectively demonstrate that older adults do not benefit from specific reactivation of a motor memory trace by an associated auditory cue during post-learning sleep. Based on previous research, it is possible that auditory stimulation during post-learning sleep could have boosted motor memory consolidation in a non-specific manner.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".