Temporal cluster-based organisation of sleep spindles underlies motor memory consolidation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep benefits motor memory consolidation, which is mediated by sleep spindle activity and associated memory reactivations during non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep. However, the particular role of NREM2 and NREM3 sleep spindles and the mechanisms triggering this memory consolidation process remain unclear. Here, simultaneous electroencephalographic and functional magnetic resonance imaging (EEG-fMRI) recordings were collected during night-time sleep following the learning of a motor sequence task. Adopting a time-based clustering approach, we provide evidence that spindles iteratively occur within clustered and temporally organised patterns during both NREM2 and NREM3 sleep. However, the clustering of spindles in trains is related to motor memory consolidation during NREM2 sleep only. Altogether, our findings suggest that spindles’ clustering and rhythmic occurrence during NREM2 sleep may serve as an intrinsic rhythmic sleep mechanism for the timed reactivation and subsequent consolidation of motor memories, through synchronised oscillatory activity within a subcortical-cortical network involved during learning.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.028 |
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".