Slow oscillation and spindle stimulation did not differentially affect motor sequence learning improvement compared to control conditions.¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · 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? The Time × Condition interaction for Motor Sequence Learning accuracy was not significant (F(4, 96) = 0.71, p = 0.589), indicating stimulation conditions did not differentially affect procedural memory change. → Jourde 2026
Evidence¶
Jourde 2026¶
Jourde, H.R., Sita, K.Z., Eyqvelle, Z., Brooks, M., & Coffey, E.B.J. (2026). Modulating sleep: slow oscillation and spindle stimulation effects on physiology and memory. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00383-6
q3 · i? · causal · r2
A repeated measures ANOVA on the Motor Sequence Learning task found a significant main effect of Time (all participants improved) but no Time × Condition interaction ("F(4,96)=0.71,p=0.589"), meaning no stimulation condition differentially changed procedural memory performance.
"the interactionbetweenTimeandConditionwasnotsignificant, F(4,96)=0.71,p=0.589, 𝜔2 =0.000indicatingthatwhile all participants improved their performance on the task, the experimental conditions did not differentially affect their change in performance on the procedural task (MSL) over time"
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- Slow oscillation and spindle stimulation did not differentially affect declarative memory change compared to control conditions. — related
- Piano rhythm accuracy improved across all conditions regardless of stimulation condition, while piano pitch accuracy did not change significantly. — related
- Closed-loop auditory stimulation of slow oscillations and spindles evokes significant neurophysiological responses compared to sham in healthy young adults. — related
- Evoked spindle activity showed modest negative correlations with piano task performance changes, while evoked SO strength showed no clear relationship with performance change. — related
- Immediate spindle stimulation truncates the stimulated spindle, while delayed stimulation enhances spindle activity without interruption. — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
no-condition-effect-procedural-memory-msl |
title |
Slow oscillation and spindle stimulation did not differentially affect motor sequence learning improvement compared to control conditions. |
description |
Slow oscillation and spindle stimulation did not differentially affect motor sequence learning improvement compared to control conditions. |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-26 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — jourde-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.