CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 46Sleep and Wakefulness ResearchSleep and related disordersPhilosophy and Theoretical Science

REM mentation in narcoleptics and normals: an empirical test of two neurocognitive theories

Fosse, Roar·2000·Consciousness and Cognition
DOI 10.1006/ccog.2000.0466
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study tested the two main neurocognitive models of dreaming by using cognitive data elicited from REM sleep in normals and narcoleptics. The two models were the "activation-only" view which holds that, in the context of sleep, overall activation of the brain is sufficient for consciousness to proceed in the manner of dreaming (e.g., Antrobus, 1991; Foulkes, 1993; Vogel, 1978); and the Activation, Input source, Modulation (AIM model), which predicts that not only brain activation level but also neurochemical modulatory systems exert widespread effects upon dreaming (Hobson & McCarley, 1977; Hobson, Pace-Schott, & Stickgold, 2000). Mental activity was studied in nocturnal REM in 15 narcoleptics and 9 normal healthy persons and in REM at the onset of daytime naps and nighttime sleep (SOREM) in narcoleptics. The study was performed in the subjects' homes, using instrumental awakenings and ambulatory polysomnographic techniques, and focused upon visual vividness, mentation report length, improbable and discontinuous bizarre features, and reflective consciousness. Within each subject group, most cognitive variables tended to fluctuate in line with expected variations in circadian activation level. When comparing the cognitive variables between the two groups, reflective consciousness was clearly highest in narcoleptics, whereas improbabilities and discontinuities were lower, with mentation report length and visual vividness differing less between the groups. These findings are consistent with the AIM model of sleep mentation, but not with the activation-only model.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/ccog.2000.0466

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • DE included more anxiety/fear and more bizarre and vivid contents.

    “Specifically, it has been found that DE included more anxiety/fear and more bizarre and vivid contents (Fosse, 2000; Fosse et al., 2002).”

    From The Functional Role of Dreaming in Emotional Processes (2019) · cites this paper as Fosse, 2000

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Fosse, R.
Affiliations
University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Fosse, Roar
ORCID
Fosse, Roar
Venue
Consciousness and Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2000-12
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
488-509
ISSN
1053-8100 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1006/ccog.2000.0466
OpenAlex
W1981590308
Cited by
46
References
70
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Consciousness and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Sleep and Wakefulness Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Keywords
REM sleep, dreams, narcolepsy, AIM model, reflective consciousness, daytime napping, REM sleep onset
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Circadian Rhythm, Cognition, Dreams, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Narcolepsy, Sleep, REM, Polysomnography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review