The oneirogen hypothesis: modeling the hallucinatory effects of classical psychedelics in terms of replay-dependent plasticity mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Classical psychedelics induce complex visual hallucinations in humans, generating percepts that are co-herent at a low level, but which have surreal, dream-like qualities at a high level. While there are many hypotheses as to how classical psychedelics could induce these effects, there are no concrete mechanistic models that capture the variety of observed effects in humans, while remaining consistent with the known pharmacological effects of classical psychedelics on neural circuits. In this work, we propose the “oneirogen hypothesis”, which posits that the perceptual effects of classical psychedelics are a result of their pharmacological actions inducing neural activity states that truly are more similar to dream-like states. We simulate classical psychedelics’ effects via manipulating neural network models trained on perceptual tasks with the Wake-Sleep algorithm. This established machine learning algorithm leverages two activity phases, a perceptual phase (wake) where sensory inputs are encoded, and a generative phase (dream) where the network internally generates activity consistent with stimulus-evoked responses. We simulate the action of psychedelics by partially shifting the model to the ‘Sleep’ state, which entails a greater influence of top-down connections, in line with the impact of psychedelics on apical dendrites. The effects resulting from this manipulation capture a number of experimentally observed phenomena including the emergence of hallucinations, increases in stimulus-conditioned variability, and large increases in synaptic plasticity. We further provide a number of testable predictions which could be used to validate or invalidate our oneirogen hypothesis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".