210 Changes in Dream Recall During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Associations with Sleep, Stress and Dream Content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction During the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals have faced unprecedented events, which are often stressful. Stress has an important impact on dreams, and stress-induced sleep difficulties may also impact dream recall. The present study evaluated associations between sleep, stress and dream content on dream recall during the pandemic. Methods A sample of N=419 US adults completed online surveys about sleep and COVID-19 experiences. Participants were asked if they remember more, fewer or about the same amount of dreams as before the pandemic. They were also asked whether the pandemic was associated with more stress, a more regular schedule, improved sleep, worse sleep, more early insomnia, more middle-of-the-night insomnia, more sleepiness, and more naps. They also completed the Insomnia Severity Index, Fatigue Severity Scale, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Brief Index of Sleep Control, Assessment of Sleep Environment, GAD-7 anxiety scale, and PHQ9 depression scale. Multinomial logistic regressions examined correlates of increased or decreased recall (versus same), adjusted for age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Results Those who experienced greater schedule regularity were less likely to report decreased recall (RRR=0.50,p<0.0005), as were those who reported sleep improvement (RRR=0.48,p=0.006). Those whose sleep worsened were more likely to report both increased (RRR=1.64,p=0.003) and decreased (RRR=2.16,p<0.0005) recall. Those suffering maintenance insomnia were more likely to report both increased (RRR=1.70,p=0.001) and decreased (RRR=2.68,p<0.0005) recall, as did those who reported more daytime sleepiness (Increased RRR=1.57,p=0.006; Decreased RRR=1.94,p=0.001). Those whose dream content was more negative were more likely to report both increased (RRR=4.05,p<0.005) and decreased (RRR=3.35,p<0.0005) recall, as did those who reported less negative content (Increased RRR=4.20,p<0.0005; Decreased RRR=5.05,p<0.0005). Similarly, those who reported more positive dream content reported both increased (RRR=17.37,p<0.0005) and decreased (RRR=7.14,p=0.02) recall, as did those who reported less positive content (Increased RRR=4.49,p<0.0005; Decreased RRR=5.59,p<0.0005). Less recall was associated with greater insomnia severity (RRR=1.08,p=0.001), fatigue (RRR=1.04,p=0.001), sleepiness (RRR=1.09,p=0.01), COVID stress (RRR=1.67,p=0.03), anxiety (RRR=1.08,p=0.01), and depression (RRR=1.06,p=0.007), worse sleep environment (RRR=1.06,p=0.005), and less sleep control (RRR=0.56,p=0.001). Conclusion The results of this survey suggest that a sudden decrease in dream recall in reaction to a new stress could be considered as a pejorative indicator regarding sleep quality and mental health. Support (if any) R01MD011600, R01DA051321
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".