MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032034907 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsaa056.086

0088 Gravity Dreams Following a Virtual Reality Flight Simulation

2020· article· en· W3032034907 on OpenAlexaffabout
Claudia Picard‐Deland, Maude Pastor, Elizaveta Solomonova, Tyna Paquette, Thomas Bendix Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCanadian Sleep & Circadian NetworkUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtual realityDreamTask (project management)Simulator sicknessCohortPsychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Flying is a prevalent but infrequent experience in dreams. Despite a broad interest in such unique dream experiences, there is still no experimental procedure for reliably inducing them. Our study aimed 1) to induce flying dreams in the laboratory using virtual reality (VR), 2) to examine phenomenological correlates of flying dreams, such as lucidity and emotions and 3) to investigate the dynamics of dreamed gravity imagery in relation to participant state and trait factors. Methods A total of 137 healthy participants (24.01±4.03 y.o.; 85 F; 52 M) took part in a custom-built immersive VR task in which they learn how to ‘fly’ as precisely and quickly as possible, engaging vestibular, motor and visuo-spatial systems. Dreams were collected a) from home dream journals for 5 days before and 10 days after the laboratory VR task and b) after a 90-min morning nap in laboratory. Dream reports were scored by 2 independent judges for flying and other gravity-related imagery. Linear mixed models statistics were used to compare dreams from this cohort with a separate control cohort (N=52) that followed a similar protocol in the same lab but did not undertake a virtual flying task. Results The VR task successfully increased the likelihood of experiencing flying in dreams from both the laboratory nap (7.1%) and the following night (10.6%) compared to baseline (1.3%) and the control cohort on those days (Lab: 2.4%; following night: 0%). In contrast, the occurrence of other gravity imagery showed no differences. Flying dreams were altered qualitatively, exhibiting higher levels of lucid-control and emotional intensity after VR exposure. Moreover, various factors such as sex, prior dream experiences and sensory immersion in VR differentially modulated flying dream induction. Conclusion Our findings provide both quantitative and qualitative insights into flying dreams that may facilitate understanding of these typical dream experiences and future developments in dream flight-induction technologies. Support Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207