Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35960337›Full record

ReviewPsychological research2023

The route to recall a dream: theoretical considerations and methodological implications.

Georgina Nemeth

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Psychological research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. New strategies for the cognitive science of dreaming.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2024
    Review
  9. 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

1 author.

Georgina NemethCenter of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience, Aarhus University, Denmark, Universitetsbyen 3 Building 1710, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. gina.nemeth@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8707-2765

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to shed new light on the relation between dream recall and dream experiences by providing a thorough analysis of the process that leads to dream reports. Three crucial steps of this process will be distinguished: dream production (the generation of a conscious experience during sleep), dream encoding (storing a trace of this experience in memory) and dream retrieval (accessing the memory trace upon awakening). The first part of the paper will assess how major theories think about the relationship between dream reports and these distinct steps. The second part will systematise how trait and state factors affecting dream recall-given different theoretical assumptions-might interact with dream production, encoding and retrieval. Understanding how the distinct steps of dream recall can be modulated by different factors is crucial for getting a better grip on how to acquire information about these steps empirically and for drawing methodological conclusions with regard to the tools dream research relies on to collect subjective data about dream experiences. The third part of the paper will analyse how laboratory reports, logs and retrospective scales interact with the different factors that affect the distinct steps leading to dream reports and will argue that prospective methods provide more direct access to data regarding dream production and encoding than retrospective methods, which-due to their inability to provide systematic control over the factors affecting the retrieval stage-screen-off the variability in the production and the encoding of dreams.

Indexed as

DreamsSleepConsciousnessHumansMental RecallRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.