MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399886794 · doi:10.3390/brainsci14070622

The Persistent Paradox of Rapid Eye Movement Sleep (REMS): Brain Waves and Dreaming

2024· review· en· W4399886794 on OpenAlexaff
J.F. Pagel

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Sciences · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSleep (system call)Rapid eye movement sleepEye movementPsychologyBrain wavesMovement (music)Slow-wave sleepNon-rapid eye movement sleepNeuroscienceAudiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitive psychologyElectroencephalographyMedicinePhysicsAcousticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The original conceptualization of REM sleep as paradoxical sleep was based on its EEG resembling wakefulness and its association with dreaming. Over time, the concept of paradox was expanded to include various associations with REM sleep, such as dream exclusivity, high recall, and pathophysiology. However, none of these associations are unique to REM sleep; they can also occur in other sleep states. Today, after more than fifty years of focused research, two aspects of REMS clearly retain paradoxical exclusivity. Despite the persistent contention that the EEG of human REMS consists of wake-like, low-voltage, non-synchronous electrical discharges, REMS is based on and defined by the intracranial electrical presence of 5-8 Hz. theta, which has always been the marker of REMS in other animals. The wake-like EEG used to define REMS on human polysomnography is secondary to a generalized absence of electrophysiological waveforms because the strong waves of intracranial theta do not propagate to scalp electrodes placed outside the skull. It is a persistent paradox that the theta frequency is restricted to a cyclical intracranial dynamic that does not extend beyond the lining of the brain. REMS has a persistent association with narratively long and salient dream reports. However, the extension of this finding to equate REMS with dreaming led to a foundational error in neuroscientific logic. Major theories and clinical approaches were built upon this belief despite clear evidence that dreaming is reported throughout sleep in definingly different physiologic and phenomenological forms. Few studies have addressed the differences between the dreams reported from the different stages of sleep so that today, the most paradoxical aspect of REMS dreaming may be how little the state has actually been studied. An assessment of the differences in dreaming between sleep stages could provide valuable insights into how dreaming relates to the underlying brain activity and physiological processes occurring during each stage. The brain waves and dreams of REMS persist as being paradoxically unique and different from waking and the other states of sleep consciousness.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain SciencesSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207