↓ Skip to main content

Non-Interfering Effects of Active Post-Encoding Tasks on Episodic Memory Consolidation in Humans

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Non-Interfering Effects of Active Post-Encoding Tasks on Episodic Memory Consolidation in Humans
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00054
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samarth Varma, Atsuko Takashima, Sander Krewinkel, Maaike van Kooten, Lily Fu, W. Pieter Medendorp, Roy P. C. Kessels, Sander M. Daselaar

Abstract

So far, studies that investigated interference effects of post-learning processes on episodic memory consolidation in humans have used tasks involving only complex and meaningful information. Such tasks require reallocation of general or encoding-specific resources away from consolidation-relevant activities. The possibility that interference can be elicited using a task that heavily taxes our limited brain resources, but has low semantic and hippocampal related long-term memory processing demands, has never been tested. We address this question by investigating whether consolidation could persist in parallel with an active, encoding-irrelevant, minimally semantic task, regardless of its high resource demands for cognitive processing. We distinguish the impact of such a task on consolidation based on whether it engages resources that are: (1) general/executive, or (2) specific/overlapping with the encoding modality. Our experiments compared subsequent memory performance across two post-encoding consolidation periods: quiet wakeful rest and a cognitively demanding n-Back task. Across six different experiments (total N = 176), we carefully manipulated the design of the n-Back task to target general or specific resources engaged in the ongoing consolidation process. In contrast to previous studies that employed interference tasks involving conceptual stimuli and complex processing demands, we did not find any differences between n-Back and rest conditions on memory performance at delayed test, using both recall and recognition tests. Our results indicate that: (1) quiet, wakeful rest is not a necessary prerequisite for episodic memory consolidation; and (2) post-encoding cognitive engagement does not interfere with memory consolidation when task-performance has minimal semantic and hippocampally-based episodic memory processing demands. We discuss our findings with reference to resource and reactivation-led interference theories.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 27%
Student > Bachelor 10 16%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Master 7 11%
Other 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 16 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 43%
Neuroscience 11 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Unknown 19 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 May 2017.
All research outputs
#17,087,492
of 25,888,065 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#2,224
of 3,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,007
of 326,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#48
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,888,065 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 326,057 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 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.