Sleep Consolidation Potentiates Sensorimotor Adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contrary to its well-established role in declarative learning, the impact of sleep on motor memory consolidation remains a subject of debate. Current literature suggests that while motor skill learning benefits from sleep, consolidation of sensorimotor adaptation (SMA) depends solely on the passage of time. This has led to the proposal that SMA may be an exception to other types of memories. Here, we addressed this ongoing controversy in humans through three comprehensive experiments using the visuomotor adaptation paradigm ( N = 290, 150 females). In Experiment 1, we investigated the impact of sleep on memory retention when the temporal gap between training and sleep was not controlled. In line with the previous literature, we found that memory consolidates with the passage of time. In Experiment 2, we used an anterograde interference protocol to determine the time window during which SMA memory is most fragile and, thus, potentially most sensitive to sleep intervention. Our results show that memory is most vulnerable during the initial hour post-training. Building on this insight, in Experiment 3, we investigated the impact of sleep when it coincided with the critical first hour of memory consolidation. This manipulation unveiled a benefit of sleep (30% memory enhancement) alongside an increase in spindle density and spindle–SO coupling during NREM sleep, two well-established neural markers of sleep consolidation. Our findings reconcile seemingly conflicting perspectives on the active role of sleep in motor learning and point to common mechanisms at the basis of memory formation.
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) | 0.002 | 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".