Dream-Enacting Behaviors in a Normal Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Determine the prevalence and gender distributions of behaviors enacted during dreaming ("dream-enacting [DE] behaviors") in a normal population; the independence of such behaviors from other parasomnias; and the influence of different question wordings, socially desirable responding and personality on prevalence. DESIGN: 3-group questionnaire study. SETTING: University classrooms PARTICIPANTS: Three undergraduate samples (Ns = 443, 201, 496; mean ages = 19.9 +/- 3.2 y; 20.1 +/- 3.4 y; 19.1 +/- 1.6 y). INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Subjects completed questionnaires about DE behaviors and Social Desirability. Study 1 employed a nonspecific question about the behaviors, Study 2 employed the same question with examples, and Study 3 employed 7 questions describing specific behavior subtypes (speaking, crying, smiling/laughing, fear, anger, movement, sexual arousal). Somnambulism, somniloquy, nightmares, dream recall, alexithymia, and absorption were also assessed. Factor analyses were conducted to determine relationships among DE behaviors and their independence from other parasomnias. Prevalence increased with increasing question specificity (35.9%, 76.7%, and 98.2% for the 3 samples). No gender difference obtained for the nonspecific question, but robust differences occurred for more specific questions. Females reported more speaking, crying, fear and smiling/laughing than did males; males reported more sexual arousal. When controlling other parasomnias and dream recall frequency, these differences persisted. Factor solutions revealed that DE behaviors were independent of other parasomnias and of dream recall frequency, except for an association between dream-talking and somniloquy. Sexual arousal was related only to age. Behaviors were independent of alexithymia but moderately related to absorption. CONCLUSIONS: Dream-enacting behaviors are prevalent in healthy subjects and sensitive to question wording but not social desirability. Subtypes are related, differ with gender and occur independently of other parasomnias.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".