MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025019901 · doi:10.1080/13576500244000210

Individual differences in lateralisation of hallucinations associated with sleep paralysis

2003· article· en· W2025019901 on OpenAlexaff
Todd A. Girard, J. Allan Cheyne

Bibliographic record

VenueLaterality Asymmetries of Body Brain and Cognition · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSleep paralysisPsychologyAudiologyVisual HallucinationVestibular systemAuditory hallucinationCognitive psychologyNeurosciencePsychosisCognitionMedicineSleep disorderPsychiatryCataplexy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaterality Asymmetries of Body Brain and CognitionSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207