| Literature DB >> 23236418 |
Jérôme Daltrozzo1, Léa Claude, Barbara Tillmann, Hélène Bastuji, Fabien Perrin.
Abstract
Although several cognitive processes, including speech processing, have been studied during sleep, working memory (WM) has never been explored up to now. Our study assessed the capacity of WM by testing speech perception when the level of background noise and the sentential semantic length (SSL) (amount of semantic information required to perceive the incongruence of a sentence) were modulated. Speech perception was explored with the N400 component of the event-related potentials recorded to sentence final words (50% semantically congruent with the sentence, 50% semantically incongruent). During sleep stage 2 and paradoxical sleep: (1) without noise, a larger N400 was observed for (short and long SSL) sentences ending with a semantically incongruent word compared to a congruent word (i.e. an N400 effect); (2) with moderate noise, the N400 effect (observed at wake with short and long SSL sentences) was attenuated for long SSL sentences. Our results suggest that WM for linguistic information is partially preserved during sleep with a smaller capacity compared to wake.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23236418 PMCID: PMC3517624 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050997
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Wake grand averaged event-related potentials to long and short sentential semantic length (SSL, see Methods) (thick red and thin blue lines, respectively) and to congruent sentences (thin black lines) during wake at anterior (F3, F4, F7, F8), central (C3, C4, T7, T8), and posterior sites of the scalp (P3, P4, P7, P8) using non degraded (DL0), mildly degraded (DL1), and highly degraded (DL3) auditory sentences (N = 15 participants, vertical unit: microvolts with negativity upward, horizontal unit: milliseconds).
Thick horizontal bars indicate the latencies of significant ERP effects according to Analysis I and II: ERP to Long SSL incongruent sentences minus ERP to congruent sentences (L) significant according to Analysis I (pink) and to Analysis II (orange); ERP to Short SSL incongruent sentences minus ERP to congruent sentences (S) significant according to Analysis II (light blue); ERP to long SSL incongruent sentences minus ERP to short SSL incongruent sentences (SSL) significant according to Analysis II (light purple).
Figure 2N2 grand averaged event-related potentials to long and short sentential semantic length (SSL, see Methods) (thick red and thin blue lines, respectively) and to congruent sentences (thin black lines) during N2 at anterior (F3, F4, F7, F8), central (C3, C4, T7, T8), and posterior sites of the scalp (P3, P4, P7, P8) using non degraded (DL0), mildly degraded (DL1), and highly degraded (DL3) auditory sentences (N = 15 participants, vertical unit: microvolts with negativity upward, horizontal unit: milliseconds).
Thick horizontal bars indicate the latencies of significant ERP effects according to Analysis I and II: ERP to Long SSL incongruent sentences minus ERP to congruent sentences (L) significant according to Analysis II (orange) and to Analysis I & II (green); ERP to Short SSL incongruent sentences minus ERP to congruent sentences (S) significant according to Analysis II (light blue) and to Analysis I & II (gray); ERP to long SSL incongruent sentences minus ERP to short SSL incongruent sentences (SSL) significant according to Analysis II (light purple) and to Analysis I & II (dark purple).
Figure 3R grand averaged event-related potentials to long and short sentential semantic length (SSL, see Methods) (thick red and thin blue lines, respectively) and to congruent sentences (thin black lines) during R at anterior (F3, F4, F7, F8), central (C3, C4, T7, T8), and posterior sites of the scalp (P3, P4, P7, P8) using non degraded (DL0), mildly degraded (DL1), and highly degraded (DL3) auditory sentences (N = 15 participants, vertical unit: microvolts with negativity upward, horizontal unit: milliseconds).
Thick horizontal bars indicate the latencies of significant ERP effects according to Analysis I and II: ERP to Long SSL incongruent sentences minus ERP to congruent sentences (L) significant according to Analysis II (orange); ERP to Short SSL incongruent sentences minus ERP to congruent sentences (S) significant according to Analysis II (light blue); ERP to long SSL incongruent sentences minus ERP to short SSL incongruent sentences (SSL) significant according to Analysis II (light purple).
Significant ERP effects according to the post hoc tests of Analysis I.
| DL independent | DL0 | DL1 | DL3 | |||
| W | 250–500 ms | 850–950 ms | 300–450 ms | 300–450 ms | 300–450 ms | |
| Lg | −0.80 (CP) |
| −1.45 |
|
| |
| S | −0.56 (P) |
|
|
|
| |
| SSL |
| 0.43 (P) |
|
|
| |
| N2 | 400–550 ms | 400–550 ms | 400–550 ms | |||
| Lg | −0.98 (AC) | 0.70 | −0.88 (P) | |||
| S | −1.08 (P) | −0.78 (P) | 0.81 (P) | |||
| SSL | 0.86 (P) | 1.33 (CP) | −1.20 (CP) | |||
| R | 600–750 ms | |||||
| Lg |
| |||||
| S |
| |||||
| SSL |
|
Note: Significant ERP effects according to the post hoc tests of Analysis I (p<.05) in microV with their topography in parenthesis to the presentation of non degraded (DL0), mildly degraded (DL1), and highly degraded (DL3) auditory sentences during wake, N2, and R. A: Anterior sites (F3, F4, F7, F8), C: Central sites (C3, C4, T7, T8), P: Posterior sites (P3, P4, P7, P8), CP: Central and Posterior sites, AC: Anterior and Central sites, n.s.: non-significant ERP effect (p>.05), Lg: ERP (averaged in the above-mentioned time windows) to long SSL incongruent sentences minus ERP to congruent sentences, S: ERP to short SSL incongruent sentences minus ERP to congruent sentences, SSL: ERP to long minus short SSL incongruent sentences, W: Wake, DL independent: ERP effects independent from the DL (i.e. from an interaction that did not include the DL factor).
Significant ERP effects according to the post hoc tests of Analysis II.
| DL0 | DL1 | DL3 | ||||||||
| 400–550 ms | 550–700 ms | 1100–1200 ms | 400–550 ms | 550–700 ms | 1100–1200 ms | 400–550 ms | 550–700 ms | 1100–1200 ms | ||
| S indep. | Lg | −0.20 |
| 0.33 (LA) | ||||||
| S | −0.51 | −0.37 (L) |
| |||||||
| SSL | 0.22 (LA) | 0.42 (L) | 0.78 (RA) | |||||||
| W | Lg | −1.20 (CP) | −1.07 (CP) | −1.00 | −0.77 |
|
| |||
| S | −1.04 | −0.77 (P) |
|
|
| −0.75 (CP) | ||||
| SSL |
| −0.51 (CP) | −0.82 | −0.85 |
| 0.87 | ||||
| N2 | Lg | −0.98 (AC) | −0.82 (AC) | 0.70 |
| −0.72 (CP) |
| |||
| S | −0.76 | 0.63 (A) | −0.78 (P) | −1.22 (CP) | 0.81 (P) | 0.64 (P) | ||||
| SSL | −0.58 (A) 0.86 (P) | −1.29 (AC) | 1.33 (CP) | 1.46 (CP) | −1.20 (CP) | −0.93 (P) | ||||
| R | Lg | −1.58 (P) |
| −0.78 (CP) | −0.63 (CP) | 1.08 | 0.73 (A) 0.56 (P) | |||
| S |
| 0.85 (CP) | −1.63 | −0.73 (CP) | −0.63 (P) | −0.50 (P) | ||||
| SSL | −1.25 (CP) | −0.96 | 0.95 |
| 1.56 | 0.70 (A) 1.06 (P) |
Note: Significant ERP effects according to the post hoc tests of Analysis II (p<.05) in microV with their topography in parenthesis to the presentation of non degraded (DL0), mildly degraded (DL1), and highly degraded (DL3) auditory sentences during wake, N2, and R. A: Anterior sites (F3, F4, F7, F8), C: Central sites (C3, C4, T7, T8), P: Posterior sites (P3, P4, P7, P8), L: Left hemisphere sites (F3, F7, C3, T7, P3, P7), CP: Central and Posterior sites, AC: Anterior and Central sites, RA: Right anterior sites (F4, F8), LA: Left anterior sites (F3, F7),
: all scalp sites except the right anterior region, n.s.: non-significant ERP effect (p>.05), Lg: ERP (averaged in the above-mentioned time windows) to long SSL incongruent sentences minus ERP to congruent sentences, S: ERP to short SSL incongruent sentences minus ERP to congruent sentences, SSL: ERP to long minus short SSL incongruent sentences, W: Wake, S indep.: ERP effects independent from the Vigilance State (i.e. from an interaction that did not include the Vigilance State factor).