Individual differences in lateralisation of hallucinations associated with sleep paralysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual differences were investigated in the lateralisation of two general categories of hypnagogic and hypnopompic hallucinations associated with sleep paralysis: (1) Vestibular-motor (V-M) hallucinations; comprising sensations of floating, flying, illusory locomotion and postural adjustments, out-of-body experiences (OBE), and autoscopy; and (2) Intruder hallucinations; incorporating a sense of the presence, and visual and auditory hallucinations of external, alien agents. Left-right lateralisation of such hallucinations, as well as handedness and footedness, were assessed in a diverse, nonclinical sample of 201 subjects participating in a web-based survey of sleep paralysis experiences. V-M hallucinations, but not Intruder hallucinations were predicted, based on the hypothesised distinctive neural sources of the different hallucinations, to be positively associated with handedness and footedness. Specifically, the predictions were based on the hypothesis that the activation of components of a vestibular, motor, and kinaesthetic bodily-self neuromatrix underlies V-M hallucinations, whereas a threat-activated vigilance system is responsible for Intruder hallucinations. As predicted, limb preferences were consistently found to be significantly and positively associated with a side bias of V-M, but not Intruder, hallucinations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".