Home › Research › Risk factors
One night of closed-loop auditory stimulation during sleep enhances memory consolidation in patients with Alzheimer's Disease
Lopez-Larraz, E.; Oriol, D.; Fierro, G.; Jubera-Garcia, E.; Klinzing, J. G.; Sierra-Torralba, M.; Horna-Prat, E.; Escolano et al.. medRxiv (preprint), 2026-09-17
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
INTRODUCTIONSleep-dependent memory consolidation is impaired early in Alzheimers disease (AD). Closed-loop auditory stimulation (CLAS) of sleep slow oscillations enhances memory consolidation in healthy individuals, but its efficacy in AD remains unknown. METHODSWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial in 37 patients with biomarker-confirmed early symptomatic AD and an amnestic clinical phenotype. We assessed the effect of one night of CLAS, compared with one night of sham stimulation, on declarative memory retention, sleep electrophysiology, and sleep architecture. RESULTSCLAS significantly improved overnight word-pair consolidation (Cohens dz = 0.42, p = 0.04), enhanced stimulation-evoked slow-wave and fast spindle activity, and preserved sleep architecture and subjective sleep quality. DISCUSSIONThis study provides the first demonstration that CLAS modulates sleep electrophysiology and improves overnight memory consolidation in patients with biomarker-confirmed AD. Further studies need to address the sustainability of such effects with multi-night interventions for a clinically meaningful intervention.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Lopez-Larraz, E., Oriol, D., Fierro, G., Jubera-Garcia, E., Klinzing, J. G., Sierra-Torralba, M., et al. (2026). One night of closed-loop auditory stimulation during sleep enhances memory consolidation in patients with Alzheimer's Disease. medRxiv (preprint). https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.14.26360893
Vancouver
Lopez-Larraz E, Oriol D, Fierro G, Jubera-Garcia E, Klinzing JG, Sierra-Torralba M, et al. One night of closed-loop auditory stimulation during sleep enhances memory consolidation in patients with Alzheimer's Disease. medRxiv (preprint). 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.09.14.26360893.
BibTeX
@article{lopezlarraz2026-5e962d7a,
author = {Lopez-Larraz, E. and Oriol, D. and Fierro, G. and Jubera-Garcia, E. and Klinzing, J. G. and Sierra-Torralba, M. and Horna-Prat, E. and Escolano and others},
title = {{One night of closed-loop auditory stimulation during sleep enhances memory consolidation in patients with Alzheimer's Disease}},
journal = {medRxiv (preprint)},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.09.14.26360893},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.14.26360893}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- We assessed the effect of one night of CLAS, compared with one night of sham stimulation, on declarative memory retention, sleep electrophysiology, and sleep architecture.
- RESULTSCLAS significantly improved overnight word-pair consolidation (Cohens dz = 0.42, p = 0.04), enhanced stimulation-evoked slow-wave and fast spindle activity, and preserved sleep architecture and subjective sleep quality.
Why it matters
In a small randomized trial of 37 patients with early Alzheimer's disease, one night of closed-loop auditory stimulation during sleep improved overnight memory consolidation compared with sham stimulation. The authors note that further studies are needed to see whether these effects last with multiple nights of treatment.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Participants37
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 33 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on impact for its field and year, so that was left out: it earned 31 of the 94 points we could judge it on, which is 33 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv (preprint)) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 37 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 0 / 7 | Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026 |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Javier Mínguez: h-index 39 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 3 / 3 | Harvard University: institution h-index 3,235 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 3 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 12 institution(s) in 3 countries |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 31 / 94 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 94 points we could judge it on is 33 out of 100. |
| Total | 33 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “double-blind”
783 studies in the library carry the topic tag “double-blind”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 783 tagged studies.