ArticleJournal of sleep research2026
Concurrent Presentation of Memory-Related Odours and Sounds Nullified Sleep Reactivation Benefits.
Article in Journal of sleep research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Odor-Cued Targeted Reactivation Was Unable to Selectively Benefit Declarative Memories During Sleep.Journal of sleep research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reactivation of recently acquired memories during sleep supports their longevity. Reactivation can be altered during sleep using odours 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 odours 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 odour 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 odours. 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 odour. An encoding-strength-dependent benefit was largest when sounds were presented together with the odour that lacked assigned meaning, whereas the other two odours both disrupted sound-induced memory reactivation. These two odours 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 odour cues interfered with the reactivation of spatial memories. Odours also induced a prolonged decline in sigma EEG power (12-16 Hz) that continued at least 10 s after odour offset. Overall, these findings highlight the complexity of memory consolidation during sleep when multiple memories and multiple cues are involved.
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.