Topographical changes in N1-P2 amplitude upon awakening from sleep after SWS deprivation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The issue of a quantitative and qualitative impoverishment \nof dream activity in alexithymic subjects has been assessed by analysing \nthe 14-day dream reports of two groups of accurately selected \nalexithymics and non-alexithymics. Furthermore, since recent findings \npointed to a correlation between alexithymia and measures of poor \nsleep quality during the first night of adaptation to a sleep laboratory, \nthe relation between alexithymia scores and polysomnographic measures \nwas assessed by an independent study on laboratory adapted \nsleepers. \nMethods: 1st study: Ten alexithymic and 10 non-alexithymic females \nwere selected from a larger sample of 160 undergraduate students. The \ntranscriptions of their audio-recorded dream reports upon 14 consecutive \nmorning awakenings were compared with regard to their \nlength and emotional content. Self-rates obtained by a sleep and dream \ndiary were further considered to assess between-group differences in \ndream recall frequency, and in its emotional valence, vividness and \nbizarreness. 2nd study: Twenty-seven male subjects, without sleep or \npsychiatric disorders, filled out the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale \nand slept for two consecutive undisturbed nights. Polysomnography \nand REM density were measured in the postadaptation night. \nResults: Dream recall frequency and mean dream report length were \nlower in alexithymic as compared to non-alexithymic subjects. Emotional \nvalence, vividness, bizarreness, emotions scored according to the \nHall and Van de Castle Coding System, did not show any significant \nbetween-groups difference. The total number of emotions, scored in the \ndream transcriptions, showed a close-to-significance prevalence in nonalexithymics, \nbut this difference disappeared when dream report length \nwas partialled out. In the second study, alexithymia scores did not \ncorrelated significantly with any polysomnographic variable or with \nREM density. Only the Externally Oriented Thinking (EOT) subscale \nshowed a negative association withREMlatency. Multiple regression on \nselected sleep measures as predictors, confirmed these results. \nConclusions: Results point to a general difficulty of alexithymics in \naccessing (recalling) their dreams, while the failure in showing any between- \ngroup difference with respect to the emotional contents of dream \nmentation indicate that the difficulty in regulating affects of alexithymics \nshould not affect dream activity. Furthermore, polysomnographic \nresults do not extend to normal sleep the association previously found \nbetween alexithymia and a poor quality of sleep during the adaptation \nnight in the sleep laboratory. The only polysomnographic measure \nshowing an association, albeit little, with one facet of alexithymia was \nREM latency. Only quantitative aspects of dreaming, as expressed by \ndream recall frequency and by dream report length, clearly discriminate \nbetween alexithymics and non-alexithymics.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".