Comparative analysis of three lucid dreaming techniques.

Abstract

Lucid dreams (LDs) are characterized by the presence of consciousness and the ability of a person to influence the dream plot. At present, LD induction is a challenging task, and a comparative analysis of LD techniques is needed. In this study, we compare the effectiveness of different LD induction techniques, including phantom wiggling, observing images, and imagining movements. All the techniques are intended to transfer consciousness from wakefulness into a dream. In an online experiment, volunteers were instructed to try each of the techniques three times following each of the following methods: while falling asleep in the evening (direct method [DM]), while falling asleep after an interrupted sleep (deferred direct method [DDM]), and immediately upon awakening (indirect method [IM]). A report was considered successful if at least one attempt out of three led to an LD. In total, nine attempts were made for each technique. Overall, 1,119 reports were received. For the phantom wiggling technique, the efficiency rates were 11% for the DM, 32% for the DDM, and 24% for the IM. For the observing images technique, the efficiency rates were 11% for the DM, 17% for the DDM, and 31% for the IM. For the imagining movement technique, the efficiency rates were 7% for the DM, 24% for the DDM, and 31% for the IM. Despite the substantial differences among them, all three techniques can be effective for LD induction with similar efficiency. The goal of further studies is to compare all other LD induction techniques to find the most and least effective ones. This can improve our understanding of the nature of LDs and the effectiveness of their study.

Comparative analysis of lucid dream deepening techniques.

“…At the same time, during natural awakenings, a person’s state is almost always close to REM sleep (Waters et al, 2016), which, presumably, can be extended while maintaining consciousness using LD induction techniques. This explains the greater effectiveness of the indirect method (Shashkov, Raduga, & Brauns, 2023) and gives grounds to classify direct and indirect methods into different categories.…”