Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38321066›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Post-encoding task engagement not attentional load is detrimental to awake consolidation.

Michael Craig, Joanna Greer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michael CraigDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. michael2.craig@northumbria.ac.uk.
Joanna GreerDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.

Funding

Alzheimer's Society 540
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The fate of new memories depends partly on the cognitive state experienced immediately following encoding. Wakeful rest, relative to task engagement, benefits retention and this effect is typically explained through a consolidation account: rest is theorised to provide a state of minimal interference, which would otherwise disrupt consolidation. Yet, the determinants of consolidation interference, notably the contribution of attention, remain poorly characterised. Through a repeated measures design, we investigated attention load's impact on consolidation. In three phases, participants encountered a set of nonwords and underwent immediate recognition testing, experienced a 5-min delay condition, and completed a delayed recognition test for the nonwords. This cycle repeated for each phase before proceeding to the next. Delay conditions comprised of wakeful rest and two sustained attention to response tasks (SART) that were of low (SART-fixed) and high (SART-random) attention load. Immediate memory was matched across conditions, but delayed recognition was poorer after completing the SART-fixed and SART-random conditions, relative to rest. There was no difference between the two SART conditions. These data provide insights into the factors that contribute to the success of consolidation and indicate that the attention load of a task does not determine the magnitude of consolidation interference and associated forgetting.

Indexed as

Memory ConsolidationWakefulnessHumansMemory, Short-TermMental RecallRecognition, PsychologyResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID38321066
PMCPMC10847105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.