Memory ConsolidationNCT05746299
The Impact of Reactivation During Sleep on the Consolidation of Abstract Information in Humans
A study testing Congruent vs. Incongruent, Immediate vs. Awake vs. Asleep and Targeted memory reactivation (TMR) in people with Memory Consolidation, run by University of Pennsylvania at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
In any given cognitive domain, representations of individual elements are not independent but are organized by means of structured relations. Representations of this underlying structure are powerful, allowing generalization and inference in novel environments. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 35 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Memory Consolidation
- What is being tested?
- Congruent vs. Incongruent, Immediate vs. Awake vs. Asleep and Targeted memory reactivation (TMR)
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 194 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 29 Mar 2023to 30 Jun 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 35 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Ages between 18 and 35
Who cannot join
- No medical or neurological illness that would impact experimental performance
- Not a member of a vulnerable population
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19104
About this study
Official title: The Emergence of Abstract Structure Knowledge Across Learning and Sleep
In any given cognitive domain, representations of individual elements are not independent but are organized by means of structured relations. Representations of this underlying structure are powerful, allowing generalization and inference in novel environments. In the semantic domain, structure captures associations between different semantic features or concepts (e.g., green, wings, can fly) and is known to influence the development and deterioration of semantic knowledge. The investigators recently found that humans more easily learn novel categories that contain clusters of reliably co-occurring features, revealing an influence of structure on novel category formation. However, a critical unknown is whether learned representations of structure are closely tied to category-specific elements, or whether such representations become abstract to some extent, transformed away from the experienced features. Further, if abstract structural representations do emerge, prior work provides intriguing hints that these representations may require offline consolidation during awake rest or sleep. The investigators have developed a paradigm in which carefully designed graph structures govern the pattern of feature co-occurrences within individual categories. Here the investigators implement a "structure transfer" extension of this paradigm in order to determine whether learning one structured category facilitates learning of a second identically structured category defined by a new set of features. This facilitation would provide evidence that structure representations are abstract to some degree. Aim 1 will use these methods to evaluate whether abstract structural representations emerge immediately during learning. Aim 2 will determine whether these representations persist, or emerge, over a delay, and whether sleep-based consolidation in particular is needed. The role of replay of recent experience during sleep will be evaluated using electroencephalography (EEG) paired with closed-loop targeted memory reactivation (TMR), a technique that enables causal influence over the consolidation of recently learned information in humans. This work will inform and constrain theories of semantic learning as well as theories of structure learning and representation more broadly.
- Conditions
- Memory Consolidation
- Being tested
- Congruent vs. Incongruent, Immediate vs. Awake vs. Asleep, Targeted memory reactivation (TMR)
- Keywords
- memory, sleep, learning
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Congruent vs. IncongruentBehavioural
The Congruent vs. Incongruent intervention relates to the feature-based structure of the novel categories (Modular or non-Modular) and whether there is (Congruent) or is not (Incongruent) a match between what was previously learned and the final target category.
Immediate vs. Awake vs. AsleepBehavioural
Immediate, Awake, and Sleep refer to either no break, 2.5 hours awake, or 2 hours asleep plus a 30-minute post-nap break to account for sleep inertia between learning and target category.
Targeted memory reactivation (TMR)Behavioural
Targeted memory reactivation (TMR) is the systematic presentation of sounds during sleep that were associated with certain stimuli during learning and will be administered either during slow wave sleep (SWS) or rapid eye movement (REM) sleep.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Immediate Congruent | Experimental | Participants will learn and be tested on two different semantic categories with the same structure that dictates the co-occurrence of different features. Receives: Behavioral: Congruent vs. Incongruent; Behavioral: Immediate vs. Awake vs. Asleep |
| Immediate Incongruent | Experimental | Participants will learn and be tested on two different semantic categories with different structures that dictate the co-occurrence of different features. Receives: Behavioral: Congruent vs. Incongruent; Behavioral: Immediate vs. Awake vs. Asleep |
| Awake Incongruent | Experimental | Participants will learn two different semantic categories, neither of which has a Modular structure. After a 2.5-hour break, they will learn and be tested on a novel semantic category with a Modular structure. Receives: Behavioral: Congruent vs. Incongruent; Behavioral: Immediate vs. Awake vs. Asleep |
| Awake Congruent | Experimental | Participants will learn two different semantic categories, one of which has a Modular structure. After a 2.5-hour break, they will learn and be tested on a novel semantic category with a Modular structure. Receives: Behavioral: Congruent vs. Incongruent; Behavioral: Immediate vs. Awake vs. Asleep |
| Sleep Incongruent | Experimental | Participants will learn two different semantic categories, one of which has a Modular structure. After a 2-hour nap opportunity, during which TMR will be used to reactivate the non-Modular category, participants will take a 30-minute break. After the break, they will learn and be tested on a novel semantic category with a Modular structure. Receives: Behavioral: Congruent vs. Incongruent; Behavioral: Immediate vs. Awake vs. Asleep; Behavioral: Targeted memory reactivation (TMR) |
| Sleep Congruent (SWS) | Experimental | Participants will learn two different semantic categories, one of which has a Modular structure. After a 2-hour nap opportunity, during which TMR will be used to reactivate the Modular category during slow wave sleep (SWS), participants will take a 30-minute break. After the break, they will learn and be tested on a novel semantic category with a Modular structure. Receives: Behavioral: Congruent vs. Incongruent; Behavioral: Immediate vs. Awake vs. Asleep; Behavioral: Targeted memory reactivation (TMR) |
| Sleep Congruent (REM) | Experimental | Participants will learn two different semantic categories, one of which has a Modular structure. After a 2-hour nap opportunity, during which TMR will be used to reactivate the Modular category during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, participants will take a 30-minute break. After the break, they will learn and be tested on a novel semantic category with a Modular structure. Receives: Behavioral: Congruent vs. Incongruent; Behavioral: Immediate vs. Awake vs. Asleep; Behavioral: Targeted memory reactivation (TMR) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Structure Knowledge for a New Modular Category in Stage 2
Accuracy (0-100%) on the behavioral missing feature task in Stage 2, which requires participants to use their memory from earlier in the experiment to make a guess about how to fill in missing features of the category exemplars.
Measured: In Aim 1, accuracy is collected in a missing feature task 25 min. into the experiment, taking 25 min. In Aim 2, accuracy is collected in a missing feature task over 25 min in Stage 2
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Feb 2023
- Study start29 Mar 2023
- Primary completion30 Jun 2024
- Study completion30 Jun 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (84)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Memory ConsolidationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of PennsylvaniaThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 194 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Pennsylvania
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Anna C Schapiro, PhD, Principal investigator, University of Pennsylvania
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05746299
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 833228A
- Other IDs
- 1R21MH128788-01A1
- Status last verified
- Jun 2025
- First submitted
- 14 Feb 2023
- Last updated
- 14 Jul 2025
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: All IPD that underlie results in a publication.
Publications
Gentner, D.. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive science. 1983;7(2): 155-170.
Thibodeau PH, Flusberg SJ, Glick JJ, & Sternberg DA. An emergent approach to analogical inference. Connection Science. 2013; 25(1): 27-53.
Collins AGE, Frank MJ. Neural signature of hierarchically structured expectations predicts clustering and transfer of rule sets in reinforcement learning. Cognition. 2016 Jul;152:160-169. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.04.002. Epub 2016 Apr 12.
PubMed 27082659Baram AB, Muller TH, Nili H, Garvert MM, Behrens TEJ. Entorhinal and ventromedial prefrontal cortices abstract and generalize the structure of reinforcement learning problems. Neuron. 2021 Feb 17;109(4):713-723.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2020.11.024. Epub 2020 Dec 22.
PubMed 33357385TOLMAN EC. Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychol Rev. 1948 Jul;55(4):189-208. doi: 10.1037/h0061626. No abstract available.
PubMed 18870876Behrens TEJ, Muller TH, Whittington JCR, Mark S, Baram AB, Stachenfeld KL, Kurth-Nelson Z. What Is a Cognitive Map? Organizing Knowledge for Flexible Behavior. Neuron. 2018 Oct 24;100(2):490-509. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.10.002.
PubMed 30359611Whittington JCR, Muller TH, Mark S, Chen G, Barry C, Burgess N, Behrens TEJ. The Tolman-Eichenbaum Machine: Unifying Space and Relational Memory through Generalization in the Hippocampal Formation. Cell. 2020 Nov 25;183(5):1249-1263.e23. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.024. Epub 2020 Nov 11.
PubMed 33181068McClelland JL, Rogers TT. The parallel distributed processing approach to semantic cognition. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003 Apr;4(4):310-22. doi: 10.1038/nrn1076. No abstract available.
PubMed 12671647Solomon SH, Schapiro AC. Structure shapes the representation of a novel category. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2024 Mar;50(3):458-483. doi: 10.1037/xlm0001257. Epub 2023 Jun 15.
PubMed 37326540Bahdanau D, Murty S, Noukhovitch M, Nguyen TH, de Vries H, Courville A. Systematic generalization: what is required and can it be learned?. arXiv preprint. 2018.
Mark S, Moran R, Parr T, Kennerley SW, Behrens TEJ. Transferring structural knowledge across cognitive maps in humans and models. Nat Commun. 2020 Sep 22;11(1):4783. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18254-6.
PubMed 32963219Durrant SJ, Cairney SA, Lewis PA. Cross-modal transfer of statistical information benefits from sleep. Cortex. 2016 May;78:85-99. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2016.02.011. Epub 2016 Feb 27.
PubMed 27017231Tamminen J, Lambon Ralph MA, Lewis PA. Targeted memory reactivation of newly learned words during sleep triggers REM-mediated integration of new memories and existing knowledge. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2017 Jan;137:77-82. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2016.11.012. Epub 2016 Nov 15.
PubMed 27864086Wang B, Antony JW, Lurie S, Brooks PP, Paller KA, Norman KA. Targeted Memory Reactivation during Sleep Elicits Neural Signals Related to Learning Content. J Neurosci. 2019 Aug 21;39(34):6728-6736. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2798-18.2019. Epub 2019 Jun 24.
PubMed 31235649Schapiro AC, Turk-Browne NB, Norman KA, Botvinick MM. Statistical learning of temporal community structure in the hippocampus. Hippocampus. 2016 Jan;26(1):3-8. doi: 10.1002/hipo.22523. Epub 2015 Oct 13.
PubMed 26332666
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 14 Jul 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Emergence of Abstract Structure Knowledge Across Learning and Sleep
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05746299
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 833228A
- Conditions
- Memory Consolidation
- Keywords
- memory, sleep, learning
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 194 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of PennsylvaniaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
- Study start
- 29 Mar 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jun 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Jun 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 27 Feb 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 14 Jul 2025
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
In any given cognitive domain, representations of individual elements are not independent but are organized by means of structured relations. Representations of this underlying structure are powerful, allowing generalization and inference in novel environments. In the semantic domain, structure captures associations between different semantic features or concepts (e.g., green, wings, can fly) and is known to influence the development and deterioration of semantic knowledge. The investigators recently found that humans more easily learn novel categories that contain clusters of reliably co-occurring features, revealing an influence of structure on novel category formation. However, a critical unknown is whether learned representations of structure are closely tied to category-specific elements, or whether such representations become abstract to some extent, transformed away from the experienced features. Further, if abstract structural representations do emerge, prior work provides intriguing hints that these representations may require offline consolidation during awake rest or sleep. The investigators have developed a paradigm in which carefully designed graph structures govern the pattern of feature co-occurrences within individual categories. Here the investigators implement a "structure transfer" extension of this paradigm in order to determine whether learning one structured category facilitates learning of a second identically structured category defined by a new set of features. This facilitation would provide evidence that structure representations are abstract to some degree. Aim 1 will use these methods to evaluate whether abstract structural representations emerge immediately during learning. Aim 2 will determine whether these representations persist, or emerge, over a delay, and whether sleep-based consolidation in particular is needed. The role of replay of recent experience during sleep will be evaluated using electroencephalography (EEG) paired with closed-loop targeted memory reactivation (TMR), a technique that enables causal influence over the consolidation of recently learned information in humans. This work will inform and constrain theories of semantic learning as well as theories of structure learning and representation more broadly.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 7
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Immediate Congruent | Experimental | Behavioral: Congruent vs. Incongruent, Behavioral: Immediate vs. Awake vs. AsleepParticipants will learn and be tested on two different semantic categories with the same structure that dictates the co-occurrence of different features. |
| Immediate Incongruent | Experimental | Behavioral: Congruent vs. Incongruent, Behavioral: Immediate vs. Awake vs. AsleepParticipants will learn and be tested on two different semantic categories with different structures that dictate the co-occurrence of different features. |
| Awake Incongruent | Experimental | Behavioral: Congruent vs. Incongruent, Behavioral: Immediate vs. Awake vs. AsleepParticipants will learn two different semantic categories, neither of which has a Modular structure. After a 2.5-hour break, they will learn and be tested on a novel semantic category with a Modular structure. |
| Awake Congruent | Experimental | Behavioral: Congruent vs. Incongruent, Behavioral: Immediate vs. Awake vs. AsleepParticipants will learn two different semantic categories, one of which has a Modular structure. After a 2.5-hour break, they will learn and be tested on a novel semantic category with a Modular structure. |
| Sleep Incongruent | Experimental | Behavioral: Congruent vs. Incongruent, Behavioral: Immediate vs. Awake vs. Asleep, Behavioral: Targeted memory reactivation (TMR)Participants will learn two different semantic categories, one of which has a Modular structure. After a 2-hour nap opportunity, during which TMR will be used to reactivate the non-Modular category, participants will take a 30-minute break. After the break, they will learn and be tested on a novel semantic category with a Modular structure. |
| Sleep Congruent (SWS) | Experimental | Behavioral: Congruent vs. Incongruent, Behavioral: Immediate vs. Awake vs. Asleep, Behavioral: Targeted memory reactivation (TMR)Participants will learn two different semantic categories, one of which has a Modular structure. After a 2-hour nap opportunity, during which TMR will be used to reactivate the Modular category during slow wave sleep (SWS), participants will take a 30-minute break. After the break, they will learn and be tested on a novel semantic category with a Modular structure. |
| Sleep Congruent (REM) | Experimental | Behavioral: Congruent vs. Incongruent, Behavioral: Immediate vs. Awake vs. Asleep, Behavioral: Targeted memory reactivation (TMR)Participants will learn two different semantic categories, one of which has a Modular structure. After a 2-hour nap opportunity, during which TMR will be used to reactivate the Modular category during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, participants will take a 30-minute break. After the break, they will learn and be tested on a novel semantic category with a Modular structure. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 35 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Ages between 18 and 35
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- No medical or neurological illness that would impact experimental performance
- Not a member of a vulnerable population
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Congruent vs. IncongruentThe Congruent vs. Incongruent intervention relates to the feature-based structure of the novel categories (Modular or non-Modular) and whether there is (Congruent) or is not (Incongruent) a match between what was previously learned and the final target category. | Behavioural | Awake Congruent, Awake Incongruent, Immediate Congruent, Immediate Incongruent, Sleep Congruent (REM), Sleep Congruent (SWS), Sleep Incongruent |
| Immediate vs. Awake vs. AsleepImmediate, Awake, and Sleep refer to either no break, 2.5 hours awake, or 2 hours asleep plus a 30-minute post-nap break to account for sleep inertia between learning and target category. | Behavioural | Awake Congruent, Awake Incongruent, Immediate Congruent, Immediate Incongruent, Sleep Congruent (REM), Sleep Congruent (SWS), Sleep Incongruent |
| Targeted memory reactivation (TMR)Targeted memory reactivation (TMR) is the systematic presentation of sounds during sleep that were associated with certain stimuli during learning and will be administered either during slow wave sleep (SWS) or rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. | Behavioural | Sleep Congruent (REM), Sleep Congruent (SWS), Sleep Incongruent |
Primary outcome
Structure Knowledge for a New Modular Category in Stage 2
Time frame: In Aim 1, accuracy is collected in a missing feature task 25 min. into the experiment, taking 25 min. In Aim 2, accuracy is collected in a missing feature task over 25 min in Stage 2
Accuracy (0-100%) on the behavioral missing feature task in Stage 2, which requires participants to use their memory from earlier in the experiment to make a guess about how to fill in missing features of the category exemplars.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 14 Jul 2025.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- BackgroundGentner, D.. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive science. 1983;7(2): 155-170.
- BackgroundThibodeau PH, Flusberg SJ, Glick JJ, & Sternberg DA. An emergent approach to analogical inference. Connection Science. 2013; 25(1): 27-53.
- Background: PubMed 27082659Collins AGE, Frank MJ. Neural signature of hierarchically structured expectations predicts clustering and transfer of rule sets in reinforcement learning. Cognition. 2016 Jul;152:160-169. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.04.002. Epub 2016 Apr 12.
- Background: PubMed 33357385Baram AB, Muller TH, Nili H, Garvert MM, Behrens TEJ. Entorhinal and ventromedial prefrontal cortices abstract and generalize the structure of reinforcement learning problems. Neuron. 2021 Feb 17;109(4):713-723.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2020.11.024. Epub 2020 Dec 22.
- Background: PubMed 18870876TOLMAN EC. Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychol Rev. 1948 Jul;55(4):189-208. doi: 10.1037/h0061626. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 30359611Behrens TEJ, Muller TH, Whittington JCR, Mark S, Baram AB, Stachenfeld KL, Kurth-Nelson Z. What Is a Cognitive Map? Organizing Knowledge for Flexible Behavior. Neuron. 2018 Oct 24;100(2):490-509. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.10.002.
- Background: PubMed 33181068Whittington JCR, Muller TH, Mark S, Chen G, Barry C, Burgess N, Behrens TEJ. The Tolman-Eichenbaum Machine: Unifying Space and Relational Memory through Generalization in the Hippocampal Formation. Cell. 2020 Nov 25;183(5):1249-1263.e23. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.024. Epub 2020 Nov 11.
- Background: PubMed 12671647McClelland JL, Rogers TT. The parallel distributed processing approach to semantic cognition. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003 Apr;4(4):310-22. doi: 10.1038/nrn1076. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 37326540Solomon SH, Schapiro AC. Structure shapes the representation of a novel category. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2024 Mar;50(3):458-483. doi: 10.1037/xlm0001257. Epub 2023 Jun 15.
- BackgroundBahdanau D, Murty S, Noukhovitch M, Nguyen TH, de Vries H, Courville A. Systematic generalization: what is required and can it be learned?. arXiv preprint. 2018.
- Background: PubMed 32963219Mark S, Moran R, Parr T, Kennerley SW, Behrens TEJ. Transferring structural knowledge across cognitive maps in humans and models. Nat Commun. 2020 Sep 22;11(1):4783. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18254-6.
- Background: PubMed 27017231Durrant SJ, Cairney SA, Lewis PA. Cross-modal transfer of statistical information benefits from sleep. Cortex. 2016 May;78:85-99. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2016.02.011. Epub 2016 Feb 27.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. All IPD that underlie results in a publication.
Related trials for Memory Consolidation
Recruiting
Autophagy-Enhancers to Reduce Sleep Disturbances
Mild Cognitive Impairment Due to Alzheimer's Disease, Subjective Cognitive Decline (SCD)
RecruitingPhase 1
CIML NK Cells With Venetoclax for AML
Acute Myeloid Leukemia, Acute Myeloid Leukemia Recurrent
Not yet recruitingEarly Phase 1
Human Cognition During Surgery: Stimulation-based and Cholinergic Modulation
Epilepsy, Essential Tremor
Recruiting
Electrical Nerve Stimulation During Sleep for Memory Consolidation
Healthy Volunteers (HV)
RecruitingObservational study
Sleep and Rehearsal-Driven Memory in Epilepsy
Epilepsy, Memory Consolidation
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Anna C Schapiro, PhD principal investigator
University of Pennsylvania
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Congruent vs. Incongruent, Immediate vs. Awake vs. Asleep and Targeted memory reactivation (TMR) in people with Memory Consolidation, run by University of Pennsylvania at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Jul 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 14 Jul 2025). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Structure Knowledge for a New Modular Category in Stage 2 (time frame: In Aim 1, accuracy is collected in a missing feature task 25 min. into the experiment, taking 25 min. In Aim 2, accuracy is collected in a missing feature task over 25 min in Stage 2). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05746299, which also lists 84 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 14 Jul 2025.