Claims

Whether a cue provoked an EEG-scored arousal did not affect the forgetting ratio of cued objects

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Forgetting ratios were similar for cues that caused an arousal, cues that did not, and uncued objects. → Nathan W. Whitmore 2024

Evidence

Nathan W. Whitmore 2024

Nathan W. Whitmore, Erika M. Yamazaki & Ken A. Paller. (2024). Targeted memory reactivation with sleep disruption does not weaken week-old memories. npj Science of Learning 9, 64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00276-0

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Kruskal-Wallis comparison with arousal scored offline from EEG by the AASM rule; 62% of cues caused an arousal and 38% did not, similar to the prior study (57.9% and 43.0%).

"the forgetting ratio for cues that caused an arousal, cues that did not cause an arousal, and uncued objects, was similar [(H(2) = 2.21,p = 0.34]."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id cue-arousal-did-not-modulate-forgetting
title Whether a cue provoked an EEG-scored arousal did not affect the forgetting ratio of cued objects
description Whether a cue provoked an EEG-scored arousal did not affect the forgetting ratio of cued objects
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2024
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-26
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — nathan-w-whitmore-2024

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.