4.6 Article

Boosting Vocabulary Learning by Verbal Cueing During Sleep

期刊

CEREBRAL CORTEX
卷 25, 期 11, 页码 4169-4179

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhu139

关键词

high-density EEG; language; sleep; targeted memory; reactivations; vocabulary learning

资金

  1. Swiss National Foundation (SNF) [PP00P1_133685]
  2. Clinical Research Priority Program Sleep and Health of the University of Zurich
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PP00P1_133685] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reactivating memories during sleep by re-exposure to associated memory cues (e. g., odors or sounds) improves memory consolidation. Here, we tested for the first time whether verbal cueing during sleep can improve vocabulary learning. We cued prior learned Dutch words either during non-rapid eye movement sleep (NonREM) or during active or passive waking. Re-exposure to Dutch words during sleep improved later memory for the German translation of the cued words when compared with uncued words. Recall of uncued words was similar to an additional group receiving no verbal cues during sleep. Furthermore, verbal cueing failed to improve memory during active and passive waking. High-density electroencephalographic recordings revealed that successful verbal cueing during NonREM sleep is associated with a pronounced frontal negativity in eventrelated potentials, a higher frequency of frontal slow waves as well as a cueing-related increase in right frontal and left parietal oscillatory theta power. Our results indicate that verbal cues presented during NonREM sleep reactivate associated memories, and facilitate later recall of foreign vocabulary without impairing ongoing consolidation processes. Likewise, our oscillatory analysis suggests that both sleep-specific slow waves as well as theta oscillations (typically associated with successful memory encoding during wakefulness) might be involved in strengthening memories by cueing during sleep.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据