0401 DREAM INCORPORATION OF INSOMNIA SUFFERERS AND GOOD SLEEPERS IN AN EXPERIMENTAL SETTING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dream incorporation in laboratory setting manifests itself by direct (ex: experimenter, electrodes, etc) or indirect (ex: participating in an experiment) presence of elements referencing to the experimental setting. The presence of increased cortical activation during sleep and wakefulness in insomnia sufferers (INS) is well documented and is often reflected through enhanced information processing. This latter could increase awareness of sleeping environments and lead to dream incorporation of the experimental settings. The objective of the present study is to compare INS and good sleepers (GS) regarding dream incorporation for laboratory settings. PSG was recorded in 12 INS and 12 GS (aged 30 to 45) for five consecutive nights (N1 to N5). On N3 and N5, participants were awoken during REM periods for dream collection. Dream incorporation of the laboratory setting was targeted with the following categories: environment (bed, electrodes, etc.) staff and experience (being awakened, report dreams, etc.). Dream elements referring to sleep but not related to laboratory settings were also quantified. Independent sample T tests were used to assess between groups differences in regards to 1) Environment 2) Staff 3) Experience and 4) Sleep dream incorporation. Two participants were excluded due to extreme data. Results showed a significant difference between INS and GS for environmental dream incorporation (p=.001), INS reporting more environmental elements. No significant difference were found for Staff (p=.483), Experience (p=.289) and Sleep (p=.283). Because a greater number of elements from the laboratory environment is observed in INS’ dreams, it might suggest that INS are more hyperaroused at sleep onset and display enhanced information processing. Results also suggest that INS appeared more mindful of their surroundings since the immediate, concrete, external elements of the environment are more prone to be treated and so, incorporated in dreams. CIHR (86571).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".