Effect of sleep to protect old memory does not depend on specific properties of noise applied during sleep phase.

(A) Mean performance (red line) and standard deviation (blue lines) over time: unsupervised training (white), InterleavedS,T1 (grey), Task 1/2 testing (green/yellow). (B) Mean and standard deviation of performance during testing on Task 1 (blue) and Task 2 (red). Following InterleavedS,T1, mean performance on Task 1 was 0.60 ± 0.03 while Task 2 was 0.49 ± 0.05. (In all experiments, 0.5 represents chance performance.) Note that periods of Task 1 training interleaved with sleep do not lead to increase in performance on untrained Task 2, even when Task 2 data from another experiment were used to set up mean firing rates of the random input during sleep. (C) Same as in (A) but the sequence of training was: unsupervised training (white), Task 1 training (blue), Task 1/2 testing (green/yellow), InterleavedS,T1 (grey), Task 1/2 testing (green/yellow). (D) Mean and standard deviation of performance during testing on Task 1 (blue) and Task 2 (red) after Task 1 training and after InterleavedS,T1. Following Task 1 training, mean performance on Task 1 was 0.70 ± 0.02 while Task 2 was 0.53 ± 0.02. Post InterleavedS,T1 training, mean performance on Task 1 was 0.71 ± 0.02 and Task 2 was 0.51 ± 0.02. Task 1 performance remained high after InterleavedS,T1 but no improvement on Task 2 was observed. (E) Mean performance (red line) and standard deviation (blue lines) over time: unsupervised training (white), Task 1 training (blue), Task 1/2 testing (green/yellow), InterleavedUS,T2 (burnt orange), Task 1/2 testing (green/yellow). (F) Mean and standard deviation of performance during testing on Task 1 (blue) and Task 2 (red). Following Task 1 training, mean performance on Task 1 was 0.70 ± 0.02 while Task 2 was 0.53 ± 0.02. Post InterleavedUS,T2 training, mean performance on Task 1 was 0.67 ± 0.05 and Task 2 was 0.69 ± 0.03. (EPS)