Sleep Disruption Index classifies TMR responders: participants with an index below 0.13 showed a positive recall cuing effect, those above did not show a significant one¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2022 · checked against its sources 2026-10-26 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In a decision-tree partition analysis, Sleep Disruption Index was the strongest predictor of the Δrecall cuing effect; participants with an index <0.13 (n=15) had a positive cuing effect (mean=1.53 names, t(14)=2.16, p=0.049), while those above 0.13 did not have a significant one. → Whitmore 2022 q2 i? For the recognition cuing effect, number of spoken cues was the strongest predictor; participants with >157 cues showed a nonsignificant positive trend (p=0.072) while those with fewer cues showed a negative cuing effect (mean=−0.22, t(18)=2.29, p=0.03). → Whitmore 2022 (2)

Evidence¶

Whitmore 2022¶

Whitmore, N. W., Bassard, A. M. & Paller, K. A. (2022). Targeted memory reactivation of face-name learning depends on ample and undisturbed slow-wave sleep. npj Science of Learning, 7:1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00119-2

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Exploratory decision-tree partition analysis (JMP 15) classifying participants as TMR responders or non-responders based on number of spoken cues, N3 duration, or sleep disruption index. Lower-disruption participants showed superior recall for the cued class.

"Participants with a Sleep Disruption Index < 0.13 ( n = 15) had a positive Δrecall cuing effect [mean = 1.53 names, SD = 2.75, t(14) = 2.16, p = 0.049], indicating superior recall for the cued class."

Whitmore 2022 (2)¶

Whitmore, N. W., Bassard, A. M. & Paller, K. A. (2022). Targeted memory reactivation of face-name learning depends on ample and undisturbed slow-wave sleep. npj Science of Learning, 7:1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00119-2

q2 · i? · causal · r2

The same decision-tree analysis split participants by spoken-cue count for the recognition cuing effect; the high-cue group's positive effect was a nonsignificant trend while the low-cue group showed a significant negative cuing effect.

"participants with >157 spoken cues had a nonsigni ficant trend for a positive cuing effect [mean = 0.37, SD = 0.27, t(3) = 2.73, p = 0.072], whereas those with fewer spoken cues had a negative cuing effect [mean = −0.22, SD = 0.42, t(18) = 2.29, p = 0.03]"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Sleep — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• TMR benefits on name recall are negatively correlated with post-cue sleep disruption and post-cue beta-band EEG power, suggesting reactivation depends on undisturbed sleep — related
• N3 duration, cuing, and sleep-disruption measures are intercorrelated but represent separable facets of sleep quality in predicting the recall cuing effect — related
• The TMR cuing effect on name recall is positively correlated with the duration of stage N3 (slow-wave) sleep during the nap — related