Alexithymia, Depression, Trait-anxiety and Their Relation to Self-reported Retrospective Dream Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present research explored the relationship between alexithymia, self-reported depression and trait anxiety and dreaming experience in a non-clinical sample. Characteristics of the alexithymia trait, such as the deficit in the symbolic representation of emotions and the limited imaginative ability, can have an impact on the richness and quality of dream experience. Depression and trait anxiety are both reported to be related to alexithymia and dreaming. A group of 30 non-clinical subjects (20 females) participated in the study. Alexithymia was assessed with the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia (TSIA), an observer-report instrument composed of 24 questions that assesses a general subjective level of alexithymia and 4 dimensions of alexithymia: Identifying emotional feelings (DIF), Describing emotional feelings (DDF), Imaginal Processes (IMP); and Externally oriented thinking (EOT). The subjective dreaming experience was assessed with the Mannheim Dream Questionnaire (MADRE), an instrument that was designed to elicit some form of dream history including dream recall frequency, use and correlates of dream, attitude towards dream and presence of different kinds of dreams experience, such as nightmares, lucid dreams, and déjà-vu. The BDI-2 and the STAI-Y2 were administered to evaluate negative affect. Two multivariate multiple regression analysis were carried on. Results showed that alexithymia was related to dream correlates and to attitude towards dream. Trait anxiety was found to be related to nightmares frequency and self-reported depression to déjà-vu event. In the future, it would be interesting to use a larger and more representative sample. The use of clinical population, such as nightmare sufferers or patients with sleep and/or mental disorders, could possibly disclosure further meaningful relationships among affect dysregulation, affect modulation and self-reported retrospective dream characteristics.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".