Post-training sleep benefits both declarative and procedural memory consolidation. However, recent research suggests that eyes-closed waking rest may provide a similar benefit. Brokaw et al. (2016), for example, recently demonstrated that verbal declarative memory improved more following a 15 min period of waking rest, in comparison to 15 min of active wake. Here, we used the same procedures to test whether procedural memory similarly benefits from waking rest. Participants were trained on the Motor Sequence Task (MST), followed by a 15 min retention interval during which they either rested with their eyes closed or completed a distractor task. Rest significantly enhanced MST performance, mirroring the effect observed in Brokaw et al. (2016) and demonstrating that waking rest benefits the early stages of procedural memory. An additional group of participants tested 4 h later displayed no effect of rest. Overall, these results suggest that the early MST performance "boost" described in prior studies may depend on post-learning state.

While several recent studies have found that a post-encoding period of quiet, eyes-closed waking rest benefits memory consolidation, others have reported null effects. To more precisely estimate this effect, we conducted a quasi-exact behavioural replication of a recent study from our lab, which found that post-training eyes-closed waking rest improved declarative memory relative to a distractor task. Contrary to our hypothesis, the observed effect was not significant; however, it did fall within the 95% confidence interval of our previous finding. Furthermore, a meta-analytic effect summarizing n = 10 similar studies indicates a moderately sized and significant benefit of waking rest for verbal memory (d = 0.38, p < 0.001). We argue that the apparently conflicting results in this literature are most parsimoniously explained by variability due to sampling and/or measurement error, in a group of studies often underpowered to detect a smaller-than-expected effect of rest. Additionally, exploratory analyses revealed that increased trait daydreaming frequency negatively correlated with memory retention during eyes-closed rest. Together with our replication and meta-analysis, these studies suggest that waking rest confers a small but significant benefit on memory consolidation, and that this benefit requires the mind to be free from attention to either external tasks or spontaneous thought.

Introduction: There is ample evidence that overnight sleep and daytime naps benefit memory retention, compared to comparable amounts of active wakefulness. Yet recent evidence also suggests that a period of post-training rest (eg, quiet wakefulness with eyes closed) provides a similar memory benefit compared to wake. However, the relative benefits of sleep vs quiet waking rest on memory remain poorly understood. Here, we assessed the extent to which sleep provides a unique memory benefit, above and beyond that conferred by quiet waking rest. Methods: In a sample of healthy undergraduate students (N=83), we tested the effect of 30 mins of post-learning sleep, rest, or active wake on concept learning (dot pattern classification) and declarative memory (word pair associates) across a 4-hr daytime training-retest interval. Results and Conclusions: Contrary to our hypotheses, we found no differences in performance between the three conditions for either task. The findings are interpreted with reference to methodological considerations including the length of the experimental interval, the nature of the tasks used, and challenges inherent in creating experimental conditions that can be executed by participants.

A 2015 article in Science (Hu et al.) proposed a new way to reduce implicit racial and gender biases during sleep. The method built on an existing counter-stereotype training procedure, using targeted memory reactivation to strengthen counter-stereotype memory by playing cues associated with the training during a 90min nap. If effective, this procedure would have potential real-world usefulness in reducing implicit biases and their myriad effects. We replicated this procedure on a sample of n = 31 college students. Contrary to the results reported by Hu et al., we found no effect of cueing on implicit bias, either immediately following the nap or one week later. In fact, bias was non-significantly greater for cued than for uncued stimuli. Our failure to detect an effect of cueing on implicit bias could indicate either that the original report was a false positive, or that the current study is a false negative. However, several factors argue against Type II error in the current study. Critically, this replication was powered at 0.9 for detecting the originally reported cueing effect. Additionally, the 95% confidence interval for the cueing effect in the present study did not overlap with that of the originally reported effect; therefore, our observations are not easily explained as a noisy estimate of the same underlying effect. Ultimately, the outcome of this replication study reduces our confidence that cueing during sleep can reduce implicit bias.

A 2015 article in Science (Hu et al.) proposed a new way to reduce implicit racial and gender biases during sleep. The method built on an existing counter-stereotype training procedure, using targeted memory reactivation to strengthen counter-stereotype memory by playing cues associated with the training during a 90min nap. If effective, this procedure would have potential real-world usefulness in reducing implicit biases and their myriad effects. We replicated this procedure on a sample of n = 31 college students. Contrary to the results reported by Hu et al., we found no effect of cueing on implicit bias, either immediately following the nap or one week later. In fact, bias was non-significantly greater for cued than for uncued stimuli. Our failure to detect an effect of cueing on implicit bias could indicate either that the original report was a false positive, or that the current study is a false negative. However, several factors argue against Type II error in the current study. Critically, this replication was powered at 0.9 for detecting the originally reported cueing effect. Additionally, the 95% confidence interval for the cueing effect in the present study did not overlap with that of the originally reported effect; therefore, our observations are not easily explained as a noisy estimate of the same underlying effect. Ultimately, the outcome of this replication study reduces our confidence that cueing during sleep can reduce implicit bias.