↓ Skip to main content

Daytime naps improve motor imagery learning

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, August 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
Title
Daytime naps improve motor imagery learning
Published in
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, August 2011
DOI 10.3758/s13415-011-0052-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ursula Debarnot, Eleonora Castellani, Gaetano Valenza, Laura Sebastiani, Aymeric Guillot

Abstract

Sleep is known to contribute to motor memory consolidation. Recent studies have provided evidence that a night of sleep plays a similar functional role following motor imagery (MI), while the simple passage of time does not result in performance gains. Here, we examined the benefits of a daytime nap on motor memory consolidation after MI practice. Participants were trained by MI on an explicitly known sequence of finger movements at 11:00. Half of the participants were then subjected (at 14:00) to either a short nap (10 min of stage 2 sleep) or a long nap (60-90 min, including slow wave sleep and rapid eye movement sleep). We also collected data from both quiet and active rest control groups. All participants remained in the lab until being retested at 16:00. The data revealed that a daytime nap after imagery practice improved motor performance and, therefore, facilitated motor memory consolidation, as compared with spending a similar time interval in the wake state. Interestingly, the results revealed that both short and long naps resulted in similar delayed performance gains. The data might also suggest that the presence of slow wave and rapid eye movement sleep does not provide additional benefits for the sleep-dependent motor skill consolidation following MI practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 119 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 18%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Student > Master 12 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 28 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 9%
Sports and Recreations 11 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 8%
Neuroscience 10 8%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 39 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2016.
All research outputs
#7,977,154
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#346
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,822
of 123,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 123,324 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.