Cited by 195Sleep and Wakefulness ResearchMotor Control and AdaptationMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Sleep Does Not Benefit Probabilistic Motor Sequence Learning

Open access
Song, Sunbin, Howard, James H., Howard, Darlene V.·2007·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

It has become widely accepted that sleep-dependent consolidation occurs for motor sequence learning based on studies using finger-tapping tasks. Studies using another motor sequence learning task [the serial response time task (SRTT)] have portrayed a more nuanced picture of off-line consolidation, involving both sleep-dependent and daytime consolidation, as well as modifying influences of explicit awareness. The present study used a variant of the SRTT featuring probabilistic sequences to investigate off-line consolidation. Probabilistic sequences confer two advantages: first, spontaneous explicit awareness does not occur, and second, sequence learning measures are continuous, making it easier to separate general skill from sequence-specific learning. We found that sleep did not enhance general skill or sequence-specific learning. In contrast, daytime enhancement occurred for general skill but not for sequence-specific learning. Overall, these results suggest that motor learning does not always undergo consolidation with sleep.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.2062-07.2007

Cites

11 of 11 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?

  • Sleep-dependent gains in skills are more robust under explicit learning conditions than under implicit learning conditions.

    “First, sleep-dependent gains in skills are more robust under explicit learning conditions (i.e., the subjects are aware about the skill to be acquired) (383, 664, 1285) compared with implicit learning conditions (385,1003,1122,1128).”

    From About Sleep's Role in Memory (2013) · cites this paper as [1122]

    The Introduction describes sleep-related gains in finger-tapping tasks that use a known, explicit sequence, while the General summary reports no sleep-dependent gains in this study's relatively pure implicit-learning measure. The Lack of sleep-related effects section says enhancement may occur only with explicit motor-sequence learning, but presents that comparison as a possibility, not an established difference in robustness. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Sleep-dependent benefits are also not consistently revealed in younger subjects for this task, possibly due to the great complexity of the underlying sequence rules associated with a higher degree of implicitness at learning.

    “However, sleepdependent benefits are also not consistently revealed in younger subjects for this task, possibly due to the great complexity of the underlying sequence rules associated with a higher degree of implicitness at learning (852,1122,1123).”

    From About Sleep's Role in Memory (2013) · cites this paper as [1122]

    The Subjects and design section describes participants aged 18–25, and the General summary reports no sleep-dependent consolidation of sequence learning. The Introduction says probabilistic sequences are less likely to produce explicit awareness, while Lack of sleep-related effects proposes lack of explicit awareness as one possible explanation. The paper does not attribute the finding to the great complexity of the underlying sequence rules. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Cohen DA, Pascual-Leone A, Press DZ, Robertson EM (2005) Off-line learning of motor skill memory: a double dissociation of goal and move- ment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:18237-18241.
  2. Robertson EM, Pascual-Leone A, Press DZ (2004) Awareness modifies the skill-learning benefits of sleep. Curr Biol 14:208 -212.
  3. Robertson EM, Press DZ, Pascual-Leone A (2005) Off-line learning and the primary motor cortex. J Neurosci 25:6372-6378.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Song, S., Howard, J. H., & Howard, D. V.
Affiliations
Georgetown University (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2007-11-14
Volume
27
Issue
46
Pages
12475-12483
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2028263944
Cited by
195
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 8
FWCI
4.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (R37 AG15450, R37AG015450)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (F31NS053388)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Sleep and Wakefulness Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
motor sequence learning, explicit awareness
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Awareness, Brain, Cues, Female, Humans, Learning, Learning Disabilities, Male, Memory, Movement, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychomotor Performance, Sleep, Sleep Deprivation, Models, Statistical

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