PreprintCited by 25Memory Processes and InfluencesSleep and Wakefulness ResearchMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Retrieval and sleep both counteract the forgetting of spatial information.

Open access
Antony, James W., Paller, Ken A.·2018·Learning & Memory

Abstract

Repeatedly studying information is a good way to strengthen memory storage. Nevertheless, testing recall often produces superior long-term retention. Demonstrations of this testing effect, typically with verbal stimuli, have shown that repeated retrieval through testing reduces forgetting. Sleep also benefits memory storage, perhaps through repeated retrieval as well. That is, memories may generally be subject to forgetting that can be counteracted when memories become reactivated, and there are several types of reactivation: (i) via intentional restudying, (ii) via testing, (iii) without provocation during wake, or (iv) during sleep. We thus measured forgetting for spatial material subjected to repeated study or repeated testing followed by retention intervals with sleep versus wake. Four groups of subjects learned a set of visual object-location associations and either restudied the associations or recalled locations given the objects as cues. We found the advantage for restudied over retested information was greater in the PM than AM group. Additional groups tested at 5-min and 1-wk retention intervals confirmed previous findings of greater relative benefits for restudying in the short-term and for retesting in the long-term. Results overall support the conclusion that repeated reactivation through testing or sleeping stabilizes information against forgetting.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/lm.046268.117

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous work has indicated that restudied but not retested materials are better remembered after a night of sleep than a day of wakefulness.

    “Consistent with this view, previous work has indicated that restudied but not retested materials are better remembered after a night of sleep than a day of wakefulness [24,25].”

    From Sleep bolsters schematically incongruent memories (2022) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Results (‘Sleep aided restudied more than retested information, but only at the 12-h interval’) report a significant interaction: sleep relative to wake preferentially benefited restudied information. However, the direct sleep–wake comparison for restudied items was not statistically significant (P = 0.11), so the claim overstates the evidence that those items were better remembered after sleep on their own. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The sample size of N = 60 was chosen based on a power analysis using an effect size from Antony & Paller (2018), with a minimum of N = 20 for 95% power, and increased from N = 20 to mitigate noise associated with online data collection.

    “However, because Antony & Paller (2018) [25] conducted their study in the laboratory, we believed it reasonable to increase our sample to N = 60 to mitigate any noise associated with online data collection.”

    From Sleep bolsters schematically incongruent memories (2022) · cites this paper as Antony & Paller (2018) [25]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Antony, J. W., & Paller, K. A.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Venue
Learning & Memory
Published
2018-05-15
Volume
25
Issue
6
Pages
258-263
ISSN
  • 1072-0502 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5485
OpenAlex
W2803953788
Cited by
25
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Learning & Memory (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • NIH (T32-AG020418, F31-MH100958)
  • NSF (BCS-1461088)
  • Northwestern University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Sleep and Wakefulness Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
forgetting, spatial memory, memory reactivation, sleep-dependent memory consolidation, testing effect, restudy, object-location associations, memory stabilization
MeSH terms
Memory Consolidation, Association Learning, Female, Humans, Male, Practice, Psychological, Mental Recall, Sleep, Wakefulness, Young Adult, Spatial Memory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review