Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000094
Title: | Time for Considering the Possibility That Sleep Plays No Unique Role in Motor Memory Consolidation: Reply to Adi-Japha and Karni (2016) | Authors: | Rickard, Timothy C Pan, Steven C |
Keywords: | Social Sciences Psychology Psychology, Multidisciplinary sleep consolidation motor skills motor sequence learning sleep enhancement procedural memory DAYTIME SLEEP SEQUENCE SKILL PERFORMANCE BENEFITS STABILIZATION ACQUISITION LIMITATIONS CHILDHOOD CHILDREN |
Issue Date: | 1-Apr-2017 | Publisher: | AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC | Citation: | Rickard, Timothy C, Pan, Steven C (2017-04-01). Time for Considering the Possibility That Sleep Plays No Unique Role in Motor Memory Consolidation: Reply to Adi-Japha and Karni (2016). PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN 143 (4) : 454-458. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000094 | Abstract: | The hypothesis that sleep makes a unique contribution to motor memory consolidation has been debated in recent years. In the target article (Pan & Rickard, 2015), we reported results of a comprehensive meta-analysis of the explicit motor sequence learning literature in which evidence was evaluated for both enhanced performance after sleep and stabilization after sleep. After accounting for confounding variables, we found no compelling evidence for either empirical phenomenon, and hence no compelling evidence for sleep-specific consolidation. In their comment, Adi-Japha and Karni (2016) critiqued the target article on three primary grounds: (a) our unrealistic (in their view) assumption that, if sleep-specific consolidation occurs, it is mechanistically unitary across all variants of the motor sequence experiments included in the meta-analysis, (b) our inclusion of child groups, which they believe may have resulted in an underestimation of sleep effects among adult groups, and (c) our inclusion of several experiments with atypical experimental designs, which may have introduced unaccounted for heterogeneity. In this reply we address each of those potentially legitimate concerns. We show that the metaregression allowed for tests of multiple candidate variables that could engender separate consolidation mechanisms, yielding no behavioral evidence for it. We also show through reanalysis that the inclusion of child groups had virtually no impact on the parameter estimates among adults, and that the inclusion of experiments with atypical designs did not materially influence parameter estimates. | Source Title: | PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN | URI: | https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/228400 | ISSN: | 00332909 19391455 |
DOI: | 10.1037/bul0000094 |
Appears in Collections: | Staff Publications Elements |
Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | Access Settings | Version | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RP_PB_2017.pdf | 111.91 kB | Adobe PDF | CLOSED | Published |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.