ArticlePloS one2026
Investigating the transfer of physical stimuli to the dreamed body: A comparative study of muscular, vestibular, and haptic stimulation on dream incorporation.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The relationship between the dreamed body and the physical body remains an open question in sleep and dream research. This study examined whether somatosensory stimulation applied during REM sleep modulates the corresponding dream content under controlled conditions. Using a within-subject design, we compared three stimulation modalities-electrical muscular, galvanic vestibular, and haptic vibration-each paired with a modality-specific sham stimulation. Twenty-four participants completed one adaptation night followed by three consecutive experimental nights in the sleep laboratory. Dream reports were collected following rapid eye movement sleep awakenings after stimulation or sham periods, yielding a total of 120 reports. Dream incorporation of bodily sensations and actions was observed across all conditions; however, generalized linear mixed-effects analyses revealed no statistically significant differences between stimulation and sham conditions for any modality. No evidence for reliable modality-specific dream incorporation was observed under rigorous sham-controlled conditions. Rather than demonstrating robust stimulation-specific effects, these findings suggest that contextual and expectancy-related influences substantially contribute to bodily dream content under laboratory conditions while highlighting methodological challenges in dream incorporation research. By combining multiple somatosensory stimulation modalities with rigorous sham-controlled procedures, the present study provides a methodological benchmark for future investigations of dream incorporation and dream engineering.
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.