Gaétane Deliens1, Rachel Leproult, Daniel Neu, Philippe Peigneux. 1. UR2NF - Neuropsychology and Functional Neuroimaging Research Group at CRCN - Center for Research in Cognition and Neurosciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) and UNI - ULB Neurosciences Institute; Brussels, Belgium ; Sleep Laboratory & Unit for Chronobiology U78, Brugmann University Hospital - Université Libre de Bruxelles (U.L.B./V.U.B.), Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that rapid eye movement (REM) sleep contributes to the consolidation of new memories, whereas non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep contributes to the prevention of retroactive interference. DESIGN: Randomized, crossover study. SETTING: Two sessions of either a morning nap or wakefulness. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five healthy young adults. INTERVENTIONS: Declarative learning of word pairs followed by a nap or a wake interval, then learning of interfering word pairs and delayed recall of list A. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: After a restricted night (24:00-06:00), participants learned a list of word pairs (list A). They were then required to either take a nap or stay awake during 45 min, after which they learned a second list of word pairs (list B) and then had to recall list A. Fifty percent of word pairs in list B shared the first word with list A, resulting in interference. Ten subjects exhibited REM sleep whereas 13 subjects exhibited NREM stage 3 (N3) sleep. An interference effect was observed in the nap but not in the wake condition. In post-learning naps, N3 sleep was associated with a reduced interference effect, which was not the case for REM sleep. Moreover, participants exhibiting N3 sleep in the post-learning nap condition also showed a reduced interference effect in the wake condition, suggesting a higher protection ability against interference. CONCLUSION: Our results partly support the hypothesis that non-rapid eye movement sleep contributes in protecting novel memories against interference. However, rapid eye movement sleep-related consolidation is not evidenced.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that rapid eye movement (REM) sleep contributes to the consolidation of new memories, whereas non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep contributes to the prevention of retroactive interference. DESIGN: Randomized, crossover study. SETTING: Two sessions of either a morning nap or wakefulness. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five healthy young adults. INTERVENTIONS: Declarative learning of word pairs followed by a nap or a wake interval, then learning of interfering word pairs and delayed recall of list A. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: After a restricted night (24:00-06:00), participants learned a list of word pairs (list A). They were then required to either take a nap or stay awake during 45 min, after which they learned a second list of word pairs (list B) and then had to recall list A. Fifty percent of word pairs in list B shared the first word with list A, resulting in interference. Ten subjects exhibited REM sleep whereas 13 subjects exhibited NREM stage 3 (N3) sleep. An interference effect was observed in the nap but not in the wake condition. In post-learning naps, N3 sleep was associated with a reduced interference effect, which was not the case for REM sleep. Moreover, participants exhibiting N3 sleep in the post-learning nap condition also showed a reduced interference effect in the wake condition, suggesting a higher protection ability against interference. CONCLUSION: Our results partly support the hypothesis that non-rapid eye movement sleep contributes in protecting novel memories against interference. However, rapid eye movement sleep-related consolidation is not evidenced.
Authors: Philippe Peigneux; Steven Laureys; Sonia Fuchs; Fabienne Collette; Fabien Perrin; Jean Reggers; Christophe Phillips; Christian Degueldre; Guy Del Fiore; Joël Aerts; André Luxen; Pierre Maquet Journal: Neuron Date: 2004-10-28 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Dorothy Tse; Rosamund F Langston; Masaki Kakeyama; Ingrid Bethus; Patrick A Spooner; Emma R Wood; Menno P Witter; Richard G M Morris Journal: Science Date: 2007-04-06 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Brinda K Rana; Matthew S Panizzon; Carol E Franz; Kelly M Spoon; Kristen C Jacobson; Hong Xian; Sonia Ancoli-Israel; Michael Lyons; William S Kremen Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 2.892