Partial REM-Sleep Deprivation Increases the Dream-Like Quality of Mentation From REM Sleep and Sleep Onset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Sleep onset (SO) is cognitively and physiologically similar to rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, supporting the notion that REM sleep-related processes are 'covertly' active at this time. The objective was to determine if SO mentation is sensitive to REM sleep deprivation. DESIGN: Two-group cross-sectional design; sleep recordings for 3 nights. SETTING: Standard sleep laboratory with 24-channel polysomnography recording. PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen female, 13 male healthy volunteers (18-41 yrs, mean=24.8 +/- 6.07). INTERVENTIONS: On Night 2, half were and half were not partially REM sleep-deprived (REMD), recalled REM mentation, and rated it for dream-like quality (DLQ), sleepiness, and sensory attributes. On Night 3, all were awakened from SO substages 4 and 5 for mentation reports and further ratings. REMD measures were derived from scored sleep tracings. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: REMD produced increases in DLQ for both REM and SO reports (P < .05); DLQ scores were higher for REM than for SO mentation (P < .001). Covarying sleepiness preserved the (REMD) effect but abolished the REM/SO difference. Whereas 2 sensory attributes (presence of self, visual intensity) tended to distinguish the REM-mentation reports of REMD and control subjects, only 1, self-movement, distinguished their SO mentation reports (P < .06). Multiple regression revealed that increased DLQ of both REM and SO mentation was associated with increased sleepiness and decreased REM sleep time on Night 2. CONCLUSIONS: SO mentation responds to REMD much like REM mentation does, a finding consistent with other work supporting the notion of covert REM-sleep processes at SO. DLQ may be mediated by both increases in REM-sleep propensity and a circadian process indexed by sleepiness ratings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".