Memory retention following acoustic stimulation in slow-wave sleep: a meta-analytic review of replicability and measurement quality

Tylor J. Harlow, Matthew Jané, H. Read, J. J. Chrobak
{"title":"Memory retention following acoustic stimulation in slow-wave sleep: a meta-analytic review of replicability and measurement quality","authors":"Tylor J. Harlow, Matthew Jané, H. Read, J. J. Chrobak","doi":"10.3389/frsle.2023.1082253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The role of slow oscillations and spindles during sleep on memory retention has become an area of great interest in the recent decade. Accordingly, there are multiple studies that examine the efficacy of acoustic stimulation during sleep to facilitate slow oscillations and associated memory retention. Here, we run meta-analyses on a current set of 14 studies that use audible noise-burst sound stimulation to modulate overnight retention of word pairs (kS = 12 studies, kES = 14 effect sizes, n = 206 subjects). Our meta-analyses demonstrate a steady, yearly decline in effect size that accounts for 91.8% of the heterogeneity between studies. We find that the predicted effect on memory retention in 2013 favored the acoustic stimulation condition at dδ = 0.99 (95% CI [0.49, 1.49]), while the predicted effect in 2021 declined to a moderate and significant effect favoring no acoustic stimulation at dδ = −0.39 (95% CI [−0.73, −0.05]). Our meta-regression model finds no coded study-level characteristics could account for the decline in effect sizes over time other than the publication date alone. Using available data, we estimate that 34% of subjects are not actually blind to the acoustic stimulation condition due to hearing acoustic stimulation during sleep. In addition, we find that the test-retest reliability of memory retention scores is nearly zero (ρd = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.18, 0.21]), and through simulation demonstrate the impact this has on statistical power and observed effect sizes. Based on our analyses, we discuss the need for larger sample sizes, true placebo controls, age range restrictions, open-data sharing, and improvements in the reliability of memory retention tasks.","PeriodicalId":73106,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in sleep","volume":"81 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in sleep","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frsle.2023.1082253","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The role of slow oscillations and spindles during sleep on memory retention has become an area of great interest in the recent decade. Accordingly, there are multiple studies that examine the efficacy of acoustic stimulation during sleep to facilitate slow oscillations and associated memory retention. Here, we run meta-analyses on a current set of 14 studies that use audible noise-burst sound stimulation to modulate overnight retention of word pairs (kS = 12 studies, kES = 14 effect sizes, n = 206 subjects). Our meta-analyses demonstrate a steady, yearly decline in effect size that accounts for 91.8% of the heterogeneity between studies. We find that the predicted effect on memory retention in 2013 favored the acoustic stimulation condition at dδ = 0.99 (95% CI [0.49, 1.49]), while the predicted effect in 2021 declined to a moderate and significant effect favoring no acoustic stimulation at dδ = −0.39 (95% CI [−0.73, −0.05]). Our meta-regression model finds no coded study-level characteristics could account for the decline in effect sizes over time other than the publication date alone. Using available data, we estimate that 34% of subjects are not actually blind to the acoustic stimulation condition due to hearing acoustic stimulation during sleep. In addition, we find that the test-retest reliability of memory retention scores is nearly zero (ρd = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.18, 0.21]), and through simulation demonstrate the impact this has on statistical power and observed effect sizes. Based on our analyses, we discuss the need for larger sample sizes, true placebo controls, age range restrictions, open-data sharing, and improvements in the reliability of memory retention tasks.
慢波睡眠中声刺激后的记忆保留:可重复性和测量质量的元分析回顾
近十年来,睡眠中的慢振荡和纺锤波在记忆保持中的作用已成为一个非常感兴趣的领域。因此,有多项研究检验了睡眠期间声刺激促进慢振荡和相关记忆保持的功效。在这里,我们对目前的14项研究进行了荟萃分析,这些研究使用可听到的噪音刺激来调节单词对的过夜记忆(kS = 12项研究,kES = 14个效应大小,n = 206名受试者)。我们的荟萃分析表明,在研究之间的异质性中,91.8%的效应值呈稳定的、逐年下降的趋势。我们发现,2013年预测的记忆保留效应倾向于dδ = 0.99时的声刺激条件(95% CI[0.49, 1.49]),而2021年的预测效应下降到dδ = - 0.39时的中度显著效应,倾向于无声刺激(95% CI[- 0.73, - 0.05])。我们的元回归模型发现,除了单独的出版日期外,没有编码的研究水平特征可以解释效应量随时间的下降。根据现有数据,我们估计有34%的受试者在睡眠中听到了声刺激,因此实际上并没有对声刺激条件失明。此外,我们发现记忆保持分数的重测信度几乎为零(ρd = 0.01, 95% CI[- 0.18, 0.21]),并通过模拟证明了这对统计能力和观察到的效应大小的影响。基于我们的分析,我们讨论了需要更大的样本量、真正的安慰剂对照、年龄范围限制、开放数据共享以及提高记忆保持任务的可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信