PuSH - Publikationsserver des Helmholtz Zentrums München: Comparing targeted memory reactivation during slow wave sleep and sleep stage 2.

Informationen

Hinweise zu Qualitätskriterien von Zeitschriften

Open-Access-Richtlinie der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft 2016

CC Licencences

Metriken für Publikationen

Navigation

Startseite

English

EVA: Veröffentlichen

Neuer EVA Antrag

Recherche

Erweiterte Suche

Durchblättern nach ...

... HMGU-Autoren/Konsortien

... Organisationsstruktur

... Zeitschriften

... Publikationstypen

... Forschungsdaten

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Erscheinungsjahr

Publikationen im Überblick

Statistik

HGF Fortschrittsbericht

OA Publikationen

Eintragen

Neue Publikation eintragen

Neue Publikation holen aus...

...EVA

Fehlende Publikation melden

Highlights

Suche

Hilfe & Kontakt

Ansprechpartner

Hilfe

Datenschutz

Helmholtz Open Science

Bibliometrische Indikatoren

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Carbone, J.* ; Bibián, C.* ; Born, J. ; Forcato, C.* ; Diekelmann, S.*

Comparing targeted memory reactivation during slow wave sleep and sleep stage 2.

Sci. Rep. 14:9057 (2024)

Verlagsversion

DOI

PMC

	Open Access Gold

Abstract
Metriken
Zusatzinfos

Sleep facilitates declarative memory consolidation, which is assumed to rely on the reactivation of newly encoded memories orchestrated by the temporal interplay of slow oscillations (SO), fast spindles and ripples. SO as well as the number of spindles coupled to SO are more frequent during slow wave sleep (SWS) compared to lighter sleep stage 2 (S2). But, it is unclear whether memory reactivation is more effective during SWS than during S2. To test this question, we applied Targeted Memory Reactivation (TMR) in a declarative memory design by presenting learning-associated sound cues during SWS vs. S2 in a counterbalanced within-subject design. Contrary to our hypothesis, memory performance was not significantly better when cues were presented during SWS. Event-related potential (ERP) amplitudes were significantly higher for cues presented during SWS than S2, and the density of SO and SO-spindle complexes was generally higher during SWS than during S2. Whereas SO density increased during and after the TMR period, SO-spindle complexes decreased. None of the parameters were associated with memory performance. These findings suggest that the efficacy of TMR does not depend on whether it is administered during SWS or S2, despite differential processing of memory cues in these sleep stages.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Altmetric

3.800

0.000