Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35417930›Full record

ReviewJournal of sleep research2022

What about dreams? State of the art and open questions.

Serena Scarpelli, Valentina Alfonsi, Maurizio Gorgoni, Luigi De Gennaro

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of sleep research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The futuristic manifolds of REM sleep.Journal of sleep research · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Serena ScarpelliDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9260-7111
Valentina AlfonsiDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9929-0399
Maurizio GorgoniDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5544-5483
Luigi De GennaroDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3613-6631
Fondazione Santa Lucia · ITSapienza University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several studies have tried to identify the neurobiological bases of dream experiences, nevertheless some questions are still at the centre of the debate. Here, we summarise the main open issues concerning the neuroscientific study of dreaming. After overcoming the rapid eye movement (REM) - non-REM (NREM) sleep dichotomy, investigations have focussed on the specific functional or structural brain features predicting dream experience. On the one hand, some results underlined that specific trait-like factors are associated with higher dream recall frequency. On the other hand, the electrophysiological milieu preceding dream report upon awakening is a crucial state-like factor influencing the subsequent recall. Furthermore, dreaming is strictly related to waking experiences. Based on the continuity hypothesis, some findings reveal that dreaming could be modulated through visual, olfactory, or somatosensory stimulations. Also, it should be considered that the indirect access to dreaming remains an intrinsic limitation. Recent findings have revealed a greater concordance between parasomnia-like events and dream contents. This means that parasomnia episodes might be an expression of the ongoing mental sleep activity and could represent a viable direct access to dream experience. Finally, we provide a picture on nightmares and emphasise the possible role of oneiric activity in psychotherapy. Overall, further efforts in dream science are needed (a) to develop a uniform protocol to study dream experience, (b) to introduce and integrate advanced techniques to better understand whether dreaming can be manipulated, (c) to clarify the relationship between parasomnia events and dreaming, and (d) to determine the clinical valence of dreams.

Indexed as

DreamsParasomniasHumansMental RecallSleepSleep, REMactivation hypothesiscontinuity hypothesisdream enacting behaviourdream recallinterindividual differencesnightmares

Identifiers

PMID35417930
PMCPMC9539486
OpenAlexW4224004063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.