ArticlePloS one2024
An online experiment that presents challenges for translating rest-related gains in visual detail memory from the laboratory to naturalistic settings.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Should we all just take 10? A meta-analysis of wakeful rest.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Pooled it
- Wakeful rest and memory consolidation in an ecologically valid educational setting: no benefit over distractor tasks.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Post-encoding task engagement not attentional load is detrimental to awake consolidation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New memories are labile and consolidate over time. Contemporary findings demonstrate that, like sleep, awake quiescence supports consolidation: people remember more new memories if they experience a brief period of post-encoding quiet rest than sensory processing. Furthermore, it was recently demonstrated that the quality of new memories can also be enhanced significantly by awake quiescence. This phenomenon offers great applied potential, for example, in education and eyewitness testimony settings. However, the translation of rest-related gains from the laboratory to everyday life remains poorly characterised and findings are mixed. Here, we report follow-on evidence demonstrating that rest-related gains in visual detail memory may be more challenging to achieve in naturalistic than laboratory-based settings. In contrast to established laboratory findings, using an online version of an established consolidation paradigm, we observed no memory benefit of post-encoding quiescence, relative to an engaging perceptual task, in the retention of detailed visual memories as measured through a lure discrimination task. This null finding could not be explained by intentional rehearsal in those who rested or between-group differences in participants' demographics or mental state, including fatigue and mood. Crucially, post-experimental reports indicated that those in the rest group experienced challenges in initiating and maintaining a state of quiescence, which may account for our null finding. Based on these findings, we propose three areas of focus for future work should rest-related gains in memory be translated from the lab to field: (1) to establish the specific environmental and individual conditions that are conducive and detrimental to awake consolidation, (2) to understand the barriers to initiating and maintaining a state of quiescence in naturalistic settings, and (3) to examine how knowledge of quiescence and its cognitive benefits can encourage the initiation and maintenance of states that are conductive to awake consolidation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.