ArticleExperimental brain research2026
Daytime sleep following observational practice does not enhance a visual-spatial and a motor representation.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study examined if a daytime nap of 90 min can further improve skill memory afforded by observation and physical practice. Moreover, we determined if a 'nap' benefit was restricted to a particular representational form (spatial or motor) that can be used to govern performance. Participants were assigned to one of four experimental conditions: physical practice with no nap, physical practice with a nap, observation with no nap, and observation with a nap. Specifically, after either physical or observational practice of a 1300-ms sequence of flexion and extensions at the right elbow, a participant experienced a 90-min nap or an equivalent period of wake-filled rest. Each participant then completed a retention test and a set of inter-manual transfer tests that probed the efficacy of spatial and motor representations that developed because of the practice modality and if a nap was experienced. As expected, retention and transfer performance were superior following physical practice compared to observation. However, observation offered benefits to skill revealed by lower RMSE for observers at retention compared to that displayed during the initial trials for the individuals' privy to physical practice. A nap only supported a reduction in error when administered after physical practice. This was true not only for retention but also during tests that relied on available visual-spatial and motor representations. Counter to recent reports, observers did not benefit from a nap. A nap following observation harmed individuals to instantiate the visual-spatial and the motor representation for movement sequence production.
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.