ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Concurrent presentation of memory-related odors and sounds nullified sleep reactivation benefits.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reactivation of recently acquired memories during sleep supports their longevity. Reactivation can be biased 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 presented with these odors. Spatial recall was tested after sleep. Sounds produced a selective recall benefit for weakly encoded memories. However, results did not support the prediction that forgetting could be instilled by the concurrent forget odor. The encoding-strength-dependent benefit was greatest when sounds were presented together with the odor not assigned meaning, whereas the other two odors both disrupted sound-induced memory reactivation. We infer that remember and forget odors, due to the linked instructions and/or multiple learning episodes in the Directed-Forgetting task, evoked sleep-based retrieval that interfered with 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.
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.