Back

REM negatively predicts statistical learning but not other forms of gist

Matorina, N.; Poppenk, J.

2019-09-25 neuroscience
10.1101/578492 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Human memory for recent events is believed to undergo reactivation during sleep. This process is thought to be relevant for the consolidation of both individual episodic memories and gist extraction, the formation of generalized memory representations from multiple, related memories. Which kinds of gist are actually enhanced, however, is the subject of less consensus. To address this question, we focused our design on four types of gist: inferential gist (relations extracted across non-contiguous events), statistical learning (regularities extracted from a series), summary gist (a theme abstracted from a temporally contiguous series of items), and category gist (characterization of a stimulus at a higher level in the semantic hierarchy). Sixty-nine participants (30 men, 38 women, and 1 other) completed memory encoding tasks addressing these types of gist and corresponding retrieval tasks the same evening, the morning after, and one week later. Inferential gist was retained over a week, whereas memory for category gist, summary gist, and statistical learning decayed. Higher proportions of REM were associated with worse performance in a statistical learning task controlling for time. Our results support that REM sleep is involved in schema disintegration, which works against participants ability to identify regularities within temporal series.\n\nSIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTTo gain the most from our experiences, we extract from them the most important elements, or \"gist\", with sleep believed to facilitate this process. However, what is referred to as gist varies considerably across studies. We report categorically different mnemonic trajectories of two classes of gist. In particular, we show that gist involving synthesis across relational memories is retained over time, whereas other gists were subject to substantial decay. Moreover, our evidence supports the idea that REM works to discretize, rather than synthesize experiences. Future research should test similar constructs in different tasks to determine whether these findings are generalizable. Our research suggests that patients with reduced REM sleep may experience more interference between similar memories.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory
40 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.4%
2
The Journal of Neuroscience
1025 papers in training set
Top 2%
7.2%
3
Neuropsychologia
85 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
4
Hippocampus
56 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
5
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
135 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
5.5%
6
Cerebral Cortex
396 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.0%
7
Frontiers in Psychology
56 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
8
Cortex
119 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.0%
9
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 30%
3.4%
10
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.2%
11
Neuroscience of Consciousness
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
12
Journal of Neurophysiology
302 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
13
eneuro
439 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.1%
14
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
15
Behavioral Neuroscience
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
16
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.5%
17
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
49 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
18
Brain Sciences
55 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
19
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 35%
1.1%
20
Behavioural Brain Research
77 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
21
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
23 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
22
Cerebral Cortex Communications
36 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
23
Learning & Memory
23 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
24
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
Psychophysiology
77 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 20%
0.8%
27
Cognition
47 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
28
Communications Psychology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
29
Neuroscience
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
30
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 35%
0.8%