The Effects of Lucid Dreaming and Nightmares on Sleep Quality and Mental Health Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate relationships between lucid dreaming and sleep and mental health outcomes within a representative sample of the general population. We also sought to examine how nightmares interact with the relationship between lucid dreaming, sleep, and mental health outcomes. METHODS: = 1332) completed measures of lucid dream frequency, nightmare frequency, anxiety and depressive symptoms, stress, and sleep quality. Hierarchical regression models were conducted, where step-1 examined the direct effect of lucid dreaming on all outcome variables, and step-2 added nightmares into the equation (to examine direct effects of lucid dreaming frequency and nightmares, and the indirect effect of nightmares). RESULTS: Step-1 results demonstrated that lucid dreaming positively predicted poor sleep quality, stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. Step-2 results revealed that nightmares were the only significant predictor of poor sleep quality, stress, and anxiety symptoms, accounting for all of the variance of lucid dreaming. Nightmares and the interaction of nightmares and lucid dreaming positively predicted depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that nightmares alone explain associations between lucid dreaming and poor sleep quality, anxiety symptoms, and stress. However, both nightmares and the combination of nightmares and lucid dreaming are associated with increased depressive symptoms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".