Skip to main content
. 2015 Oct 28;6:8729. doi: 10.1038/ncomms9729

Figure 2. Behavioural results.

Figure 2

(a) The same pattern of results is visible in both the correct (N=14) and the false-feedback group (N=13). A repeated measures ANOVA followed by post hoc comparisons revealed that in the false-feedback group memory for ‘cued' words (black bar) was enhanced as compared with ‘uncued' (white bar) and ‘cued +feedback' words (grey bar). In the correct-feedback group memory for ‘cued' words (black bar) was enhanced as compared with ‘cued +feedback' words (grey bar), while the difference to ‘uncued' words (white bar) reached a statistical trend (P=0.069; after correction for multiple comparisons). (b) For the control group (N=16) a very similar enhancing effect appeared when Dutch cues were followed by late and correct feedback (1,500 ms instead of 200 ms interstimulus interval) as compared with the ‘uncued' (white bar) and ‘cued+tone' words (grey bar). Retrieval performance is indicated as percentage of recalled German translations with performance before sleep set to 100%. Values are mean±s.e.m. *P≤0.05; +P<0.07.