PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12531155

Learning and sleep: the sequential hypothesis.

Abstract

During the last 30 years, paradoxical sleep (PS) has been generally considered as the only type of sleep involved in memory processing, mainly for the consistent increase of PS episodes in laboratory animals learning a relatively complex task, and for the retention deficits induced by post-training PS deprivation. The vicissitudes of this idea, examined in detail by several laboratories, have been critically presented in a number of review articles However, according to a more comprehensive unitary proposal (the sequential hypothesis), memory processing during sleep does require the initial participation of slow-wave sleep (SS) in addition to the subsequent involvement of PS. The evidence supporting this hypothesis, largely derived from experiments concerning rats trained for a two-way active avoidance task, is reviewed here in some detail. Recent studies of human sleep are in full agreement with this view. In the rat, the main effect of learning on post-training SS consists in the selective increment in the average duration of SS episodes initiating different types of sleep sequences. Notably, following training for a two-way active avoidance task, the occurrence of this effect in sleep sequences including transition sleep (TS), such as SS-->TS-->W and SS-->TS-->PS, appears related to the processing of memories of the novel avoidance response. Conversely, the occurrence of the same effect in sleep sequences lacking TS may reflect the processing of memories of innate responses (escapes and freezings). Memories of innate and novel responses are assumed to engage in a dynamic competitive interaction to attain control of waking behaviour. Interestingly, in baseline sleep, variables of SS-->TS-->W and SS-->TS-->PS sequences, such as the average duration of SS, TS, and PS episodes, have proved to be good indices of the capacity to learn, as shown by their strong correlations with the number of avoidances scored by rats the following day. Comparable correlations have not been displayed by variables of baseline SS-->W and SS-->PS sequences.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M V. Ambrosini, A Giuditta. 2001. Learning and sleep: the sequential hypothesis.. https://doi.org/10.1053/smrv.2001.0180

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗