In the whole sample, home TMR benefits vocabulary memory only across the third night, for both remembered and newly gained words¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr2·q3·i2medium
Currency · newest study 2019 · 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 i2 Cueing and night interacted significantly, with cued words better remembered only in night 3. → Göldi 2019
q3 i? In night 3, cued words also gained significantly more new words than uncued words; lost words showed no effects. → Göldi 2019 (2)
Evidence¶
Göldi 2019¶
Göldi, M. & Rasch, B. (2019). Effects of targeted memory reactivation during sleep at home depend on sleep disturbances and habituation. npj Science of Learning 4:5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-019-0044-2
q3 · i2 · causal · r2
Repeated-measures ANOVA (cueing × night) in the full sample of 66; the cueing × night interaction was significant with "F(2,130) = 4.01, P = 0.03; η2 = 0.06", and night 3 showed cued advantage at t(65) = 2.31, P = 0.024.
"we observed a signi ficant interaction between these factors ( F(2,130) = 4.01, P = 0.03; η2 = 0.06), con firming that TMR had differential effects on memory for the three nights. In the whole sample, cued words signi ficantly pro fited from TMR during sleep only in night 3 and were signi ficantly better remembered (99.95 ± 1.96%) than uncued words (96.29 ± 1.53%; t(65) = 2.31, P = 0.024, Fig. 2b)."
Göldi 2019 (2)¶
Göldi, M. & Rasch, B. (2019). Effects of targeted memory reactivation during sleep at home depend on sleep disturbances and habituation. npj Science of Learning 4:5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-019-0044-2
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Gain/loss analysis of the same night-wise design: cued words showed "4.18 ± 0.37" gains vs 3.42 ± 0.32 for uncued in night 3, t(65) = 2.28, P = 0.026; lost words showed no significant effects (all P > 0.60).
"Post hoc comparisons revealed that TMR during sleep resulted in an increase in the number of gains for cued words (4.18 ± 0.37) than uncued words in night 3 (3.42 ± 0.32; t(65) = 2.28, P = 0.026"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Lower pre-sleep performance predicts larger TMR memory benefit in night 3 — related
- Subjective sleep quality decreases in the first two TMR nights and recovers to baseline by the third night, with no change in sleep duration — related
- Participants awakened specifically by the played words show selectively impaired memory for cued versus uncued words after home TMR — related
- Unsupervised TMR of Dutch vocabulary during three nights of sleep at home does not generally improve memory for cued over uncued words — related
- Sleep-disturbance group moderates the effect of unsupervised home TMR: significant cueing × disturbance-group interaction on vocabulary memory — related
- 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
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
tmr-night3-only-benefit-home |
title |
In the whole sample, home TMR benefits vocabulary memory only across the third night, for both remembered and newly gained words |
description |
In the whole sample, home TMR benefits vocabulary memory only across the third night, for both remembered and newly gained words |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2019 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-27 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — göldi-2019, göldi-2019-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.