Neurophysiological Evidence for the Detection of External Stimuli During Sleep
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: A cognitive evoked potential, labelled "P300," is elicited when an observer attends to and detects an infrequently delivered "target" stimulus. It is not typically present if the target is ignored or undetected. P300 is therefore thought to reflect some aspect of consciousness of the stimulus. There has been much controversy concerning whether P300 can be recorded in sleep, a state in which information processing of external events is presumably reduced. The present study investigated the effects of both pitch and intensity stimuli on information processing, in order to determine whether a more salient stimulus might elicit a P300 in sleep that is comparable to the waking P300. DESIGN: A true P300 will have a parietal maximum peak following a rare stimulus, and its amplitude will vary inversely with the probability of stimulus delivery. Participants were thus randomly assigned to one of three probability groups, in which the deviant was presented on 20%, 10%, or 5% of trials. SETTING: Data were collected in the Human Neurophysiology Laboratory at the University of Ottawa. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four young adults. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: During wakefulness, a parietal P300 was apparent following both pitch and intensity deviants when participants were asked to detect deviant stimuli. A P300 was also apparent following the intensity deviant when participants were instructed to ignore the stimuli. During non-REM sleep, no P300 could be identified. In REM sleep, very rare (p=.05) loud deviants elicited a parietal P300. This P300 was attenuated relative to the waking ignore condition. Moreover, the frontal dispersion of the peak was absent. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide evidence that participants are conscious (parietal P300) of very rare and intrusive stimuli during REM sleep, although the frontal aspects associated with this consciousness may be absent.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".