Personalized TMR improves error correction (higher incorrect-to-correct transitions) and reduces persistence of incorrect responses, mainly for challenging items¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Personalized TMR showed significantly higher incorrect-correct (IC) transition ratios than CNT in the All and L3 conditions. → Shin 2025 q3 i? CNT exhibited higher incorrect-incorrect (II) ratios than personalized TMR in the All condition, reflecting greater persistence of errors without cueing personalization. → Shin 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Shin 2025¶

Shin, G.-H., Kweon, Y.-S., Oh, S., & Lee, S.-W. (2025). Personalized targeted memory reactivation enhances consolidation of challenging memories via slow wave and spindle dynamics. npj Science of Learning 10:47. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00340-3

q3 · i? · causal · r2

One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests on memory transition ratios; personalized TMR showed higher IC (error correction) ratios than CNT in both the All (t22 = 2.84, p = 0.010) and L3 conditions.

"Post-hoc comparisons revealed that personalized TMR had significantly higher IC ratios compared to CNT in both the All (t22 = 2.84,p = 0.010) and L3 (t22 = 2.63,p = 0.015) conditions, suggesting effective error correction in personalized TMR."

Shin 2025 (2)¶

Shin, G.-H., Kweon, Y.-S., Oh, S., & Lee, S.-W. (2025). Personalized targeted memory reactivation enhances consolidation of challenging memories via slow wave and spindle dynamics. npj Science of Learning 10:47. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00340-3

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Group comparison of incorrect-incorrect transition ratios in the All condition; the control group showed significantly higher II ratios than the personalized group, indicating errors persisted more without personalized cueing.

"For II transition, significant group differences were found in the All condition (F2,33 = 3.45,p = 0.044). Post-hoc comparisons revealed that CNT exhibited higher II ratios than personalized TMR ( t22 = -2.70, p =0 . 0 1 3 ) ,r eflecting greater persistence of incorrect responses in CNT."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Personalized TMR improves recall accuracy for the most challenging (L3) word pairs, outperforming both uniform TMR and no-stimulation control in the post-sleep session — related
• In the personalized TMR group, memory improvement for challenging items correlates positively with SW-spindle coupling (r = 0.70), but no such correlation appears in the All condition or other groups — related
• TMR efficacy depends on memory strength and task difficulty: benefits concentrate on moderately strong and challenging items, with limited advantage for easy (L1) items — a broader claim this one bears on