The Frequency of Sleep Talking in the Laboratory Among Chronic Sleep Talkers and Good Dream Recallers

Arkin, Arthur M.; Toth, Max F.; Baker, Julia; Hastey, John M.

doi:10.1097/00005053-197012000-00002

Cited by 35 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Foulkes (1999, p. 10) notes that other sleep behavior such as sleep walking rarely corresponds to dream reports and “there is a somewhat better, but still imperfect, relation between sleep speech and dream speech.” Arkin et al (1966,1970a,b), argue that they demonstrate significant overlap between dream reports and sleep talk that occurred during REM sleep, however, this is not clearly the case. Arkin et al (1966) examined the dream reports and sleep talk of a habitual sleep talker (S) to find correlations between the two.…”

Section: Room For Skepticism: What the Received View Does Not Explainmentioning

confidence: 99%

What I make up when I wake up: anti-experience views and narrative fabrication of dreams

Rosen

2013

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I propose a narrative fabrication thesis of dream reports, according to which dream reports are often not accurate representations of experiences that occur during sleep. I begin with an overview of anti-experience theses of Norman Malcolm and Daniel Dennett who reject the received view of dreams, that dreams are experiences we have during sleep which are reported upon waking. Although rejection of the first claim of the received view, that dreams are experiences that occur during sleep, is implausible, I evaluate in more detail the second assumption of the received view, that dream reports are generally accurate. I then propose a “narrative fabrication” view of dreams as an alternative to the received view. Dream reports are often confabulated or fabricated because of poor memory, bizarre dream content, and cognitive deficits. It is well documented that narratives can be altered between initial rapid eye movement sleep awakenings and subsequent reports. I argue that we have reason to suspect that initial reports are prone to inaccuracy. Experiments demonstrate that subjects rationalize strange elements in narratives, leaving out supernatural or bizarre components when reporting waking memories of stories. Inaccuracies in dream reports are exacerbated by rapid memory loss and bizarre dream content. Waking memory is a process of reconstruction and blending of elements, but unlike waking memory, we cannot reality-test for dream memories. Dream experiences involve imaginative elements, and dream content cannot be verified with external evidence. Some dreams may involve wake-like higher cognitive functions, such as lucid dreams. Such dreams are more likely to elicit accurate reports than cognitively deficient dreams. However, dream reports are generally less accurate than waking reports. I then propose methods which could verify the narrative fabrication view, and argue that although the theory cannot be tested with current methods, new techniques and technologies may be able to do so in the future.

show abstract

Section: Room For Skepticism: What the Received View Does Not Explainmentioning

confidence: 99%

What I make up when I wake up: anti-experience views and narrative fabrication of dreams

Rosen

2013

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In such cases, a small part of the brain appears to be awake while the rest of the brain is asleep [2]. This seems to be true for sleep talking as well: producing speech requires the planning and execution of rapid sequences of muscle movements, hence it will most likely occur in nonparalyzed, non-REM sleep stages [3]. This suggests that the speech we say out loud while sleeping ("sleep talk") is not necessarily just the overt counterpart of the things we may silently say in our dreams or nightmares ("dream speech").…”

Section: When Do We Sleep Talk?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Significance of Sleep Talking

Peeters

Dresler

2014

Front. Young Minds.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Sleeptalking is common in the general population, may have a genetic component [171], and may occur in REM or NREM sleep [172,173]. Most cases are not associated with serious psychopathology [174].…”

Section: Somniloquy (Sleeptalking)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Non–Rapid Eye Movement Sleep Parasomnias

Mahowald

Schenck

2005

Neurologic Clinics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parasomnias are unpleasant or undesirable behavioral or experiential phenomena that occur during sleep. Once believed unitary phenomena related to psychiatric disorders, it is now clear that parasomnias result from several different phenomena and usually are not related to psychiatric conditions. Parasomnias are categorized as primary (disorders of the sleep states) and secondary (disorders of other organ systems that manifest themselves during sleep). Primary sleep parasomnias can be classified according to the sleep state of origin: rapid eye movement sleep, non-rapid eye movement sleep, and miscellaneous (those not respecting sleep state). Secondary sleep parasomnias are classified by the organ system involved.

show abstract

The Frequency of Sleep Talking in the Laboratory Among Chronic Sleep Talkers and Good Dream Recallers

Cited by 35 publications

References 0 publications

What I make up when I wake up: anti-experience views and narrative fabrication of dreams

What I make up when I wake up: anti-experience views and narrative fabrication of dreams

Scientific Significance of Sleep Talking

Non–Rapid Eye Movement Sleep Parasomnias

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About