Cited by 12Sleep and Wakefulness ResearchSleep and related disordersMemory Processes and Influences

High dream recall frequency is associated with an increase of both bottom-up and top-down attentional processes

Open access
Ruby, Perrine, Masson, Rémy, Chatard, Benoit, Hoyer, Roxane, Bottemanne, Laure, Vallat, Raphael, Bidet-Caulet, Aurélie·2022·Cerebral Cortex

Abstract

Event-related potentials (ERPs) associated with the involuntary orientation of (bottom-up) attention toward an unexpected sound are of larger amplitude in high dream recallers (HR) than in low dream recallers (LR) during passive listening, suggesting different attentional functioning. We measured bottom-up and top-down attentional performance and their cerebral correlates in 18 HR (11 women, age = 22.7 years, dream recall frequency = 5.3 days with a dream recall per week) and 19 LR (10 women, age = 22.3, DRF = 0.2) using EEG and the Competitive Attention Task. Between-group differences were found in ERPs but not in behavior. The results show that HR present larger ERPs to distracting sounds than LR even during active listening, arguing for enhanced bottom-up processing of irrelevant sounds. HR also presented larger contingent negative variation during target expectancy and P3b to target sounds than LR, speaking for an enhanced recruitment of top-down attention. The attentional balance seems preserved in HR since their performances are not altered, but possibly at a higher resource cost. In HR, increased bottom-up processes would favor dream recall through awakening facilitation during sleep and enhanced top-down processes may foster dream recall through increased awareness and/or short-term memory stability of dream content.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cercor/bhab445

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ruby, P., Masson, R., Chatard, B., Hoyer, R., Bottemanne, L., Vallat, R., & Bidet-Caulet, A.
Affiliations
  • Lyon 1 Université (FR)
  • Perception, Attention, Memory Team—Lyon Neuroscience Research Center (CRNL), INSERM U1028, CNRS UMR 5292, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Université de Lyon , Lyon 69000, France
Corresponding author
Ruby, Perrine
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2021-12-14
Volume
32
Issue
17
Pages
3752-3762
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W4200503074
Cited by
12
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3
FWCI
0.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE30-0001-01, ANR-11-IDEX-0007)
  • LABEX CORTEX (ANR-11-LABX-0042, ANR-10-LABX-0060)
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 frequency, bottom-up attention, top-down attention, involuntary attention, event-related potentials, contingent negative variation, P3b, auditory attention
MeSH terms
Adult, Auditory Perception, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Mental Recall, Sleep, Young Adult

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