CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 71Sleep and Wakefulness ResearchSleep and related disordersMemory Processes and Influences

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

We do not dream of the 3 r’s: implications for the nature of dreaming mentation

Hartmann, Ernest·2000·Dreaming
DOI 10.1023/a:1009400805830
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This report examines the extent to which dream recall involves the “3 R's” (reading, writing, and arithmetic). Two separate studies were done. In the first study, two scorers rated, on a blind basis, a total of 456 written dream reports, available from five previous studies. There was perfect agreement between the two scorers. They agreed that there were no instances of reading, no instances of writing, and one instance of probable calculating in the 456 dreams. The second study was a questionnaire survey. Complete responses were obtained from 240 frequent dreamers (who reported remembering a mean of seven dreams per week). The study examined in two ways the frequency of the 3 R's in their recalled dreams. First, in answer to direct questions as to how frequently they dreamt about each activity, roughly 90% of the respondents reported that they “never” or “hardly ever” dreamt about each of four activities: reading, writing, typing, and calculating. In answers to other questions, this group reported spending a mean of six hours per day engaged in these activities. Second, responses as to the relative prominence of six activities (walking, writing, talking with friends, reading, sexual activity, typing) in dreaming versus waking produced two clear groupings of activities. “Walking,” “talking with friends,” and “sexual activity” were each rated almost as prominent in dreaming as in waking whereas the second group consisting of “writing,” “reading,” and “typing” were rated as far more prominent in waking than in dreaming. The two activity groups differed at p < .0001. Thus, the 3 R's appear to occur very infrequently in dreams. These findings are placed in a theoretical frame which suggests that dreaming (compared to waking) deals very little with serial activities characterized by “input—rapid-processing—output” in which the neural nets function in a feed-forward mode. Rather, dreaming may be characterized by relatively broad or loose connection making in which the nets function more in an autoassociative mode.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1009400805830

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hartmann, E.
Affiliations
Tufts University (US)
Corresponding author
Hartmann, Ernest
Venue
Dreaming
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2000-06
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
103-110
ISSN
  • 1053-0797 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3351
DOI
10.1023/a:1009400805830
OpenAlex
W1980122998
Cited by
67
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Dreaming (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Sleep and Wakefulness Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
dream recall, dream content, artificial neural networks, autoassociative memory, feedforward processing

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