ArticleNature and science of sleep2024
Dreaming Characteristics in Non-Rapid Eye Movement Parasomnia and Idiopathic Rapid Eye Movement Sleep Behaviour Disorder: Similarities and Differences.
Article in Nature and science of sleep, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Speech and Language Changes During Rapid Eye Movement (REM) Sleep with Potential Diagnostic Markers: A Systematic Review.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Dreaming conundrum.Journal of sleep research · 2025Review
- The futuristic manifolds of REM sleep.Journal of sleep research · 2025Review
- Differential motor signatures in isolated and narcolepsy-related REM sleep behaviour disorder: a preliminary study.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Speech graph analysis (SGA) of dreams has recently shown promise as an objective and language-invariant diagnostic tool that can aid neuropsychiatric diagnosis. Whilst the notion that dreaming mentations reflect distinct physiologic processes is not new, such studies in patients with sleep disorders remain exceptionally scarce. Here, using SGA and other dream content analyses, we set to investigate structural and thematic differences in morning dream recalls of patients diagnosed with Non-Rapid Eye Movement Parasomnia (NREMP) and Idiopathic REM Sleep Behavior Disorder (iRBD). Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study of morning dream recalls of iRBD and NREMP patients was undertaken. Traditional dream content analyses, such as Orlinsky and Hall and Van de Castle analyses, were initially conducted. Subsequently, SGA was performed in order to objectively quantify structural speech differences between the dream recalls of the two patient groups. Results: Comparable rate of morning recall of dreams in the sleep laboratory was recorded; 25% of iRBD and 18.35% of NREMP patients. Aggression in dreams was recorded by 28.57% iRBD versus 20.00% in NREMP group. iRBD patients were more likely to recall dreams (iRBD vs NREMP; P = 0.007), but they also had more white dreams, ie having a feeling of having dreamt, but with no memory of it. Visual and quantitative graph speech analyses of iRBD dreams suggested stable sequential structure, reflecting the linearity of the chronological narrative. Conversely, NREMP dream reports displayed more recursive, less stable systems, with significantly higher scores of graph connectivity measures. Conclusion: The findings of our exploratory study suggest that iRBD and NREMP patients may not only differ on what is recalled in their dreams but also, perhaps more strikingly, on how dreams are recalled. It is hoped that future SGA-led dream investigations of larger groups of patients will help discern distinct mechanistic underpinnings and any associated clinical implications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.