Fig 7. Lack of increased reactivation with continued motor learning.

(A) We performed the same experiment as described for day 1 (Sleep₁/Reach₁/Sleep₂/Reach₂) on subsequent days to assess whether there was evidence of continued reactivation on these days. (B) Movement speed trends during Reach₁ and Reach₂ on day 2 for one animal. (C) Comparison of respective reactivations for subsequent training days (sign-rank p = 0.4). (D) Comparison of reactivations on day 1 versus subsequent days grouped into deciles. Mean differences were compared for each decile (*** p < 0.001). We found significant differences between groups at every decile, though clearly the greatest difference occurs at the “top” decile of reactivation events. (E) Correlation between top ten percentile reactivation events and offline changes in movement speed. We found a significant correlation (Spearman’s Rho = -0.76, p < 0.05) in which reactivation predicted offline motor improvements. Error bars show S.E.M. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01,*** p < 0.001.