Intense Imagery Movements May Lead to Maladaptive Daydreaming: A Case Series and Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This case series highlights the connection between childhood intense imagery movements (IIM) and adult-reported maladaptive daydreaming (MD). Motor stereotypies occur in typically developing children and also with co-occurring neurodevelopmental differences. A subgroup with complex motor stereotypies reports accompanying intense imagery, often enhanced by the movements. This phenomenon can persist into adulthood and, in some cases, will need active management to prevent significant distress and impairment. CASES: Six adults, self-reporting maladaptive daydreaming associated with stereotypies, are presented to demonstrate the associations. LITERATURE REVIEW: The clinical significance and function of IIM and MD are unclear, but several hypotheses are discussed, including the mechanism of emotional regulation through sensory seeking, as a process for processing childhood psychological trauma, as intrusive thoughts or images as part of a subtype of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, or as a result of diverse attentional networks seen in neurodevelopmental disorders. CONCLUSIONS: This paper highlights important connections between IIM and MD. Many adults with MD show a childhood origin of stereotypical movements. Whilst immersive daydreaming may provide creativity and emotional regulation, there is evidence of distress and impairment of function for some adults, leading to MD diagnoses. Recognizing this phenomenon is important for all neurologists and physicians working with stereotypical movements.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".