MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220726505 · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2022.103306

While you were sleeping: Evidence for high-level executive processing of an auditory narrative during sleep

2022· article· en· W4220726505 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart Fogel, L. Bryan Ray, Zhuo Fang, Max M Silverbrook, Lorina Naçi, Adrian M. Owen

Bibliographic record

VenueConsciousness and Cognition · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreUniversity of OttawaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySleep (system call)WakefulnessCognitionCognitive psychologyNarrativeAudiologyNon-rapid eye movement sleepConsciousnessMind-wanderingElectroencephalographyNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During sleep we lack conscious awareness of the external environment. Yet, our internal mental state suggests that high-level cognitive processes persist. The nature and extent to which the external environment is processed during sleep remain largely unexplored. Here, we used an fMRI synchronization-based approach to examine responses to a narrative during wakefulness and sleep. The stimulus elicited the auditory network and a frontoparietal pattern of activity, consistent with high-level narrative plot-following. During REM sleep, the same frontoparietal pattern was observed in one of three participants, and partially in one other, confirming that it is possible to track and follow the moment-to-moment complexities of a narrative during REM sleep. Auditory network recruitment was observed in both non-REM and REM sleep, demonstrating preservation of low-level auditory processing, even in deep sleep. This novel approach investigating cognitive processing at different levels of awareness demonstrates that the brain can meaningfully process the external environment during REM sleep.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConsciousness and CognitionSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207