{"title":"主动和被动离线休息对儿童和成人程序性运动记忆的巩固有不同影响","authors":"D Voisin, P Peigneux, C Urbain","doi":"10.1002/brb3.70138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Short post-learning breaks, lasting from 5 to 30 min, transiently enhance procedural motor memory performance in adults. However, the impact of activity type (active vs. passive) during the offline break on sequential motor performance remains poorly investigated in children.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This study examined the impact of active versus passive post-learning breaks on procedural motor memory in 116 healthy participants (58 children, aged 9.03 ± 1.19; 58 adults, aged 22.89 ± 1.77 years). Participants practiced a Finger Tapping Task, reproducing a five-element keypress sequence as fast and accurately as possible. The task included two sessions (S1 and S2) separated by either a short (30 min) or long (4 h) break. The first 30-min of the post-learning break included either a passive (remaining still) or an active (engaging in daily activities) condition.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Repeated-measures ANOVA revealed significant Session × Age group × Break duration and Session × Break type interaction effects (p<sub>s</sub> < 0.05). Post hoc analyses indicated Session effects in adults after both Break types, but only after short Break duration (S1 < S2, p < 0.001; long delay p = 0.1). In children, Session effects were observed after both short and long breaks, but only in the active Break type (S1 < S2, p<sub>s</sub> < 0.001; passive condition p = 0.1).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These results revealed spontaneous post-learning motor performance improvements at both short and long delays in children, but only in the active post-training condition, unlike adults who showed improvements only at short delays, regardless of activity type. This suggests developmental differences in offline conditions (duration and activity) linked to plasticity mechanisms underlying procedural motor memory consolidation.</p>","PeriodicalId":9081,"journal":{"name":"Brain and Behavior","volume":"14 11","pages":"e70138"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/brb3.70138","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Active and Passive Offline Breaks Differentially Impact the Consolidation of Procedural Motor Memories in Children and Adults.\",\"authors\":\"D Voisin, P Peigneux, C Urbain\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/brb3.70138\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Short post-learning breaks, lasting from 5 to 30 min, transiently enhance procedural motor memory performance in adults. However, the impact of activity type (active vs. passive) during the offline break on sequential motor performance remains poorly investigated in children.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This study examined the impact of active versus passive post-learning breaks on procedural motor memory in 116 healthy participants (58 children, aged 9.03 ± 1.19; 58 adults, aged 22.89 ± 1.77 years). Participants practiced a Finger Tapping Task, reproducing a five-element keypress sequence as fast and accurately as possible. The task included two sessions (S1 and S2) separated by either a short (30 min) or long (4 h) break. The first 30-min of the post-learning break included either a passive (remaining still) or an active (engaging in daily activities) condition.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Repeated-measures ANOVA revealed significant Session × Age group × Break duration and Session × Break type interaction effects (p<sub>s</sub> < 0.05). Post hoc analyses indicated Session effects in adults after both Break types, but only after short Break duration (S1 < S2, p < 0.001; long delay p = 0.1). In children, Session effects were observed after both short and long breaks, but only in the active Break type (S1 < S2, p<sub>s</sub> < 0.001; passive condition p = 0.1).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These results revealed spontaneous post-learning motor performance improvements at both short and long delays in children, but only in the active post-training condition, unlike adults who showed improvements only at short delays, regardless of activity type. This suggests developmental differences in offline conditions (duration and activity) linked to plasticity mechanisms underlying procedural motor memory consolidation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9081,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brain and Behavior\",\"volume\":\"14 11\",\"pages\":\"e70138\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/brb3.70138\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brain and Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.70138\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain and Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.70138","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Active and Passive Offline Breaks Differentially Impact the Consolidation of Procedural Motor Memories in Children and Adults.
Introduction: Short post-learning breaks, lasting from 5 to 30 min, transiently enhance procedural motor memory performance in adults. However, the impact of activity type (active vs. passive) during the offline break on sequential motor performance remains poorly investigated in children.
Method: This study examined the impact of active versus passive post-learning breaks on procedural motor memory in 116 healthy participants (58 children, aged 9.03 ± 1.19; 58 adults, aged 22.89 ± 1.77 years). Participants practiced a Finger Tapping Task, reproducing a five-element keypress sequence as fast and accurately as possible. The task included two sessions (S1 and S2) separated by either a short (30 min) or long (4 h) break. The first 30-min of the post-learning break included either a passive (remaining still) or an active (engaging in daily activities) condition.
Results: Repeated-measures ANOVA revealed significant Session × Age group × Break duration and Session × Break type interaction effects (ps < 0.05). Post hoc analyses indicated Session effects in adults after both Break types, but only after short Break duration (S1 < S2, p < 0.001; long delay p = 0.1). In children, Session effects were observed after both short and long breaks, but only in the active Break type (S1 < S2, ps < 0.001; passive condition p = 0.1).
Conclusion: These results revealed spontaneous post-learning motor performance improvements at both short and long delays in children, but only in the active post-training condition, unlike adults who showed improvements only at short delays, regardless of activity type. This suggests developmental differences in offline conditions (duration and activity) linked to plasticity mechanisms underlying procedural motor memory consolidation.
期刊介绍:
Brain and Behavior is supported by other journals published by Wiley, including a number of society-owned journals. The journals listed below support Brain and Behavior and participate in the Manuscript Transfer Program by referring articles of suitable quality and offering authors the option to have their paper, with any peer review reports, automatically transferred to Brain and Behavior.
* [Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica](https://publons.com/journal/1366/acta-psychiatrica-scandinavica)
* [Addiction Biology](https://publons.com/journal/1523/addiction-biology)
* [Aggressive Behavior](https://publons.com/journal/3611/aggressive-behavior)
* [Brain Pathology](https://publons.com/journal/1787/brain-pathology)
* [Child: Care, Health and Development](https://publons.com/journal/6111/child-care-health-and-development)
* [Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health](https://publons.com/journal/3839/criminal-behaviour-and-mental-health)
* [Depression and Anxiety](https://publons.com/journal/1528/depression-and-anxiety)
* Developmental Neurobiology
* [Developmental Science](https://publons.com/journal/1069/developmental-science)
* [European Journal of Neuroscience](https://publons.com/journal/1441/european-journal-of-neuroscience)
* [Genes, Brain and Behavior](https://publons.com/journal/1635/genes-brain-and-behavior)
* [GLIA](https://publons.com/journal/1287/glia)
* [Hippocampus](https://publons.com/journal/1056/hippocampus)
* [Human Brain Mapping](https://publons.com/journal/500/human-brain-mapping)
* [Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour](https://publons.com/journal/7330/journal-for-the-theory-of-social-behaviour)
* [Journal of Comparative Neurology](https://publons.com/journal/1306/journal-of-comparative-neurology)
* [Journal of Neuroimaging](https://publons.com/journal/6379/journal-of-neuroimaging)
* [Journal of Neuroscience Research](https://publons.com/journal/2778/journal-of-neuroscience-research)
* [Journal of Organizational Behavior](https://publons.com/journal/1123/journal-of-organizational-behavior)
* [Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System](https://publons.com/journal/3929/journal-of-the-peripheral-nervous-system)
* [Muscle & Nerve](https://publons.com/journal/4448/muscle-and-nerve)
* [Neural Pathology and Applied Neurobiology](https://publons.com/journal/2401/neuropathology-and-applied-neurobiology)