Cited by 9Sleep and Wakefulness ResearchSleep and related disordersMemory Processes and Influences

Dream recall frequency is associated with attention rather than with working memory abilities

Open access
Blain, Salomé, de la Chapelle, Aurélien, Caclin, Anne, Bidet‐Caulet, Aurélie, Ruby, Perrine·2022·Journal of Sleep Research

Abstract

Several factors influencing dream recall frequency (DRF) have been identified, but some remain poorly understood. One way to study DRF is to compare cognitive processes in low and high dream recallers (LR and HR). According to the arousal-retrieval model, long-term memory encoding of a dream requires wakefulness while its multisensory short-term memory is still alive. Previous studies showed contradictory results concerning short-term memory differences between LR and HR. It has also been found that extreme DRFs are associated with different electrophysiological traits related to attentional processes. However, to date, there is no evidence for attentional differences between LR and HR at the behavioural level. To further investigate attention and working memory in HR and LR, we used a newly-developed challenging paradigm called "MEMAT" (for MEMory and ATtention), which allows the study of selective attention and working memory interaction during memory encoding of non-verbal auditory stimuli. We manipulated the difficulties of the distractor to ignore and of the memory task. The performance of the two groups were not differentially impacted by working memory load. However, HR were slower and less accurate in the presence of a hard rather than easy to-ignore distractor, while LR were much less impacted by the distractor difficulty. Therefore, we show behavioural evidence towards less resistance to hard-to-ignore distractors in HR. Using a challenging task, we show for the fir…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jsr.13557

Cites

66 of 66 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?

  • Interventional studies showing decreases in experience with recall cannot conclusively prove that experience generation is suppressed, as interventions may hinder dream encoding or retrieval.

    “Furthermore, interventional studies showing decreases in experience with recall cannot conclusively prove that experience generation is suppressed,160 as interventions may hinder dream encoding or retrieval.81,161”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blain, S., de la Chapelle, A., Caclin, A., Bidet‐Caulet, A., & Ruby, P.
Affiliations
  • Lyon 1 Université (FR)
  • Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, CNRS, UMR5292, INSERM, U1028 Lyon France
Corresponding author
Ruby, Perrine
Venue
Journal of Sleep Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-01-31
Volume
31
Issue
5
Pages
e13557-e13557
ISSN
  • 0962-1105 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2869
OpenAlex
W4210460979
Cited by
9
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2023: 2
FWCI
1.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Sleep Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Centre Lyonnais d'Acoustique, Université de Lyon (ANR‐10‐LABX‐0060)
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR‐11‐IDEX‐0007)
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, selective attention, working memory, auditory attention
MeSH terms
Attention, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Mental Recall, Wakefulness

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