Cited by 178Sleep and Wakefulness ResearchPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceSleep and related disorders

Assessing sleep consciousness within subjects using a serial awakening paradigm

Open access
Siclari, Francesca, LaRocque, Joshua J., Postle, Bradley R., Tononi, Giulio·2013·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Dreaming-a particular form of consciousness that occurs during sleep-undergoes major changes in the course of the night. We aimed to outline state-dependent features of consciousness using a paradigm with multiple serial awakenings/questionings that allowed for within as well as between subject comparisons. Seven healthy participants who spent 44 experimental study nights in the laboratory were awakened by a computerized sound at 15-30 min intervals, regardless of sleep stage, and questioned for the presence or absence of sleep consciousness. Recall without content ("I was experiencing something but do not remember what") was considered separately. Subjects had to indicate the content of the most recent conscious experience prior to the alarm sound and to estimate its duration and richness. We also assessed the degree of thinking and perceiving, self- and environment-relatedness and reflective consciousness of the experiences. Of the 778 questionings, 5% were performed during wakefulness, 2% in stage N1, 42% in N2, 33% in N3, and 17% in rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. Recall with content was reported in 34% of non-REM and in 77% of REM sleep awakenings. Sleep fragmentation inherent to the study design appeared to only minimally affect the recall of conscious experiences. Each stage displayed a unique combination of characteristic features of sleep consciousness. In conclusion, our serial awakening paradigm allowed us to collect a large and representative sample of conscious experiences across states of being. It represents a time-efficient method for the study of sleep consciousness that may prove particularly advantageous when combined with techniques such as functional MRI and high-density EEG.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00542

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Studies capturing both N2 and N3 experiential reports often report slightly higher null report rates in N3 than N2.

    “For example, studies capturing both N2 and N3 experiential reports often report slightly higher null report rates in N3 than N2.43–45,65”

    From We are the Sensors of Consciousness! A Review and Analysis on How Awakenings During Sleep Influence Dream Recall (2025) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Results section (‘Presence and absence of CE’; page unavailable) reports experiential reports with content in 42% of N2 questionings versus 23% of N3 questionings. It distinguishes those reports from experiences without content recall and from no conscious experience, but gives no N2-versus-N3 rates for the latter category. The lower rate of reports with content therefore does not establish a higher null-report rate in N3. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Keppel G. Wickens T. D. (Eds). (2004). Random factors and generalizing results, in Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook, 4th Edn., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 530– 550
  2. Strauch I. Meier B. (1996). In the Search of Dreams. Albany, NY: States University of New York Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Siclari, F., LaRocque, J. J., Postle, B. R., & Tononi, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of Wisconsin System (US)
Corresponding author
Tononi, Giulio
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2013
Volume
4
Pages
542-542
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2161794281
Cited by
178
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3
FWCI
5.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5p20mh077967-04)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH064498, P20MH-077967, R01MH095984)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM008692)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Sleep and Wakefulness Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
Keywords
dreams, REM sleep, NREM sleep, sleep stages, sleep fragmentation, reflective consciousness

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