The dynamics of emotional behaviors in rapid eye movement sleep
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dream's emotions could exert a major role in desensitizing negative emotions. Studying emotional dynamics (how emotions fluctuate across time) during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep could provide some insight into this function. However, studies so far have been limited to dream reports. To bypass this limit, REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD), in which participants enact their dreams, enables direct access to overt emotional dream behaviors (such as facial expressions and speeches). In total, 17 participants with RBD, and 39.7 h of REM sleep video were analyzed. The frequency of emotional behaviors did not differ between REM sleep episodes of early and late night. Within individual REM sleep episodes, emotional behaviors exhibited a biphasic temporal course, including an increased frequency for the first 10 min, followed by a progressive decrease. The negative emotional behaviors occurred earlier (mean time: 11.3 ± 10 min) than positive (14.4 ± 10.7 min) and neutral behaviors (16.4 ± 11.8 min). Emotional behaviors of opposing (negative and positive) valences were observed in 31% (N = 14) of episodes containing at least one emotional behavior, and were separated by a median time of 4.2 [1.1-10.9] min. The biphasic temporal course of behaviors in REM sleep could include the generation reactivation of emotional content during the ascending phase, followed by processing and extinction during the descending phase. The earlier occurrence time of negative emotional behavior suggests that negative emotions may need to be processed first. The rapid succession of emotions of opposite valence could prevent prolonged periods of negative emotions and eventually nightmares.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".