Postural balance in frequent lucid dreamers: a replication attempt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Early research suggests that the vestibular system is implicated in lucid dreaming, e.g. frequent lucid dreamers outperform others on static balance tasks. Furthermore, gravity-themed dreams, such as flying dreams, frequently accompany lucid dreaming. Nonetheless, studies are scarce. METHODS: We attempted to: (1) replicate previous findings using more sensitive static balance measures and (2) extend these findings by examining relationships with dreamed gravity imagery more generally. 131 participants (80 F; Mage=24.1 ± 4.1 yrs) estimated lucid dreaming frequency then completed a 5-day home log with ratings for dream lucidity awareness, control, and gravity sensations (flying, falling). They then performed balance tasks on a sensitive force plate, i.e. standing on one or both feet, with eyes open or closed. Center of pressure (CoP) Displacement and CoP Velocity on each trial measured postural stability. RESULTS: Findings partially support the claim of a vestibular contribution to lucid dreaming. Frequent lucid dreamers displayed better balance (lower CoP Velocity) than did other participants on some trials and lucid dreaming frequency was globally correlated with better balance (lower CoP Velocity). Lower CoP Velocity was related to flying sensations in men's dreams and with more dream control in women's dreams. However, body height-possibly due to its relationship to sex-and levels of sleepiness confound some of these effects. CONCLUSION: While findings only provide a partial replication of previous work, they nonetheless support an emerging view that the vestibular system underlies basic attributes of bodily self-consciousness, such as feelings of self-agency and self-location, whether such consciousness occurs during wakefulness or dreaming.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".