Unraveling the neurophysiological correlates of phase-specific enhancement of motor memory consolidation via slow-wave closed-loop targeted memory reactivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Memory consolidation can be enhanced during sleep using targeted memory reactivation (TMR) and closed-loop (CL) acoustic stimulation on the up-phase of slow oscillations (SOs). Here, we test whether applying TMR at specific phases of the SOs (up vs. down vs. no reactivation) can influence the behavioral and neural correlates of motor memory consolidation in healthy young adults. Results show that up- (as compared to down-) state cueing results in greater performance improvement. Sleep electrophysiological data indicate that up- (as compared to down-) stimulated SOs exhibits higher amplitude and greater peak-nested sigma power. Task-related functional magnetic resonance images reveal that up-state cueing strengthens activity in - and segregation of - striato-motor and hippocampal networks; and that these modulations are related to the beneficial effect of TMR on sleep features and performance. Overall, these findings highlight the potential of CL-TMR to induce phase-specific modulations of motor performance, sleep oscillations and brain responses during motor 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 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".