Alexithymia and Polysomnographic Measures of Sleep in Healthy Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined associations between alexithymia and objective characteristics of sleep (latencies, stages, and amount and patterning of REM sleep) that may contribute to subjective reports of poor sleep quality and impaired dream recall among alexithymic people. METHODS: Fifty healthy, normally sleeping adults from the community completed the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale and slept uninterrupted for one night in the laboratory while polysomnography was conducted. Various measures of sleep latency, sleep stages, and REM sleep-related variables were obtained, and analyses correlated these sleep measures with alexithymia, controlling for age, sex, and level of depressed affect. RESULTS: Higher alexithymia scores were significantly related to increased stage 1 (light) sleep and decreased stage 3/4 (deep) sleep. Alexithymia was unrelated to overall sleep efficiency or percentage of stage 2 sleep. Alexithymia was related to more frequent REM episodes and more stage 1 sleep during and immediately after REM episodes but was unrelated to the absolute amount of REM sleep. Alexithymia was also related to an earlier onset of the first REM episode. CONCLUSIONS: Alexithymia is associated with more light sleep and less deep sleep, which may contribute to subjective reports of poor sleep and increased sleepiness, fatigue, and somatic symptoms. Although alexithymia is not associated with an overall reduction of REM sleep, the increased frequency of episodes of REM that are interrupted and followed by light sleep rather than complete awakenings may contribute to limited dream recall.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".