CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 318Sleep and Wakefulness ResearchSleep and related disordersPhilosophy and Theoretical Science

Continuity between waking activities and dream activities

Schredl, Michael, Hofmann, Friedrich·2003·Consciousness and Cognition
DOI 10.1016/s1053-8100(02)00072-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Empirical studies largely support the continuity hypothesis of dreaming. Despite of previous research efforts, the exact formulation of the continuity hypothesis remains vague. The present paper focuses on two aspects: (1) the differential incorporation rate of different waking-life activities and (2) the magnitude of which interindividual differences in waking-life activities are reflected in corresponding differences in dream content. Using a correlational design, a positive, non-zero correlation coefficient will support the continuity hypothesis. Although many researchers stress the importance of emotional involvement on the incorporation rate of waking-life experiences into dreams, formulated the hypothesis that highly focused cognitive processes such as reading, writing, etc. are rarely found in dreams due to the cholinergic activation of the brain during dreaming. The present findings based on dream diaries and the exact measurement of waking activities replicated two recent questionnaire studies. These findings indicate that it will be necessary to specify the continuity hypothesis more fully and include factors (e.g., type of waking-life experience, emotional involvement) which modulate the incorporation rate of waking-life experiences into dreams. Whether the cholinergic state of the brain during REM sleep or other alterations of brain physiology (e.g., down-regulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) are the underlying factors of the rare occurrence of highly focused cognitive processes in dreaming remains an open question. Although continuity between waking life and dreaming has been demonstrated, i.e., interindividual differences in the amount of time spent with specific waking-life activities are reflected in dream content, methodological issues (averaging over a two-week period, small number of dreams) have limited the capacity for detecting substantial relationships in all areas. Nevertheless, it might be concluded that the continuity hypothesis in its present general form is not valid and should be elaborated and tested in a more specific way.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1053-8100(02)00072-7

Cites

35 of 35 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?

  • Close studies of dream journals have found that replays of specific memories or a day's events are generally rare or nonexistent, although dreams do in general involve actions and people the dreamer is familiar with.

    “Close studies of dream journals have in general found that replays of specific memories or a day's events are generally either rare or nonexistent, although they do in general involve actions and people the dreamer is familiar with.75”

    From The overfitted brain: Dreams evolved to assist generalization (2021) · cites this paper as [75]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schredl, M., & Hofmann, F.
Affiliations
Central Institute of Mental Health (DE)
Corresponding author
Schredl, Michael
ORCID
Schredl, Michael
Venue
Consciousness and Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-06
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
298-308
ISSN
1053-8100 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s1053-8100(02)00072-7
OpenAlex
W2100655406
Cited by
318
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 10
FWCI
2.25
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
dream content, individual differences, emotional engagement, cholinergic stimulation, REM sleep, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, dream diary
MeSH terms
Adult, Cognition, Dreams, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Receptors, Cholinergic, Sleep, REM

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