henhaobio
Sign in

Journal of Sleep ResearchNeurosciencePeer-reviewed journal article

Concurrent presentation of memory-related odors and sounds nullified sleep reactivation benefits

Gayathri Subramanian, Christina ZelanoiD, Ken A. PalleriD, Eitan SchechtmaniD

PDFDOIPreprint

Abstract

AbstractReactivation of recently acquired memories during sleep supports their longevity. Reactivation can be altered during sleep using odors or sounds through a technique termed targeted memory reactivation (TMR). Here, we attempted to selectively weaken memories by reactivating them together with forgetting instructions. We delivered sounds to reactivate spatial memories and concurrent odors to reactivate instructions. Participants learned about the instructions in a Directed-Forgetting task performed with a list of to-be-remembered and to-be-forgotten words. One odor was linked with instructions to forget, one with instructions to remember, and a third was not assigned any meaning. During a nap, sounds previously linked with object-location learning were simultaneously presented with these odors. Spatial recall was tested after sleep. Sound cues produced a selective recall benefit for weakly encoded memories. However, memory results did not support the prediction that forgetting could be instilled by the concurrent forget odor. An encoding-strength-dependent benefit was largest when sounds were presented together with the odor that lacked assigned meaning, whereas the other two odors both disrupted sound-induced memory reactivation. These two odors were linked with instructions and with multiple learning episodes in the Directed-Forgetting task. Accordingly, we infer that reactivation evoked by the remember and forget odor cues interfered with the reactivation of spatial memories. Odors also induced a prolonged decline in sigma EEG power (12-16 Hz) that continued at least 10 s after odor offset. Overall, these findings highlight the complexity of memory consolidation during sleep when multiple memories and multiple cues are involved.

Citations
1
FWCI
4.10
Field percentile
top 11%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.