Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 dence in the correctness of one’s own erroneous opin- ions is positively correlated with the degree of expertise one believes oneself to have in the field of knowledge within which the erroneous opinion falls. This finding may help in understanding why the authors of some of these books did not find it necessary to consider criucally their own erroneous statements. A very considerable proportion of psychologists have a potential interest in the question of ESP. Ina. recent survey (Wagner & Monnet, 1979) of university professors in various fields, 34% of hologists were found to consider ESP cither an established fact ora cly possibility, exactly the same proportion-es-cous sidered it an impossibility. In this survey, psychologists ‘Tess Trequently expressed a positive opinion than did members of other disciplines, a finding that may be attributable to psychologists’ better understanding of sources of error in human judgment. There seems to be no equally sound reason for the curious fact that psychologists differed overwhelmingly from others in their tendency to consider ESP an impossibility. Of natural scienusts, only 3% checked that opinion: of the 166 professors in other social sciences, not a single one did. '” Both of these groups of psychologists have been ill served by the apparently scholarly books that seem to convey information about the dream experiments. . The same may be said about some other lines of para- psychological research. Interested readers might well consult the original sources and form their own judg- ments. REFERENCES Akers, C. (1984), Methadological criticisms of parapsychology. In S. Krippner (Ed.), Advances in parapsychological research (Vol. 4, pp. 112-164). Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Alcock, J. E. (1981). Parapsychology, science or magic? A psycho- logical perspective. New York: Pergamon Press. Alcock, J. E. (1983), Bringing anomalies back into psychology. Contemporary Psychology, 28, 351-352. Aycroff. F., & Abelson, R. P. (1976). ESP and ESB: Belief in personal success at mental telepathy. Jowrnal of Personality and Social Psychology: 34, 240-247, Belvedere, E., & Foulkes, D. (1971). Telepathy and dreams: A failure to replicate. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 33. 783-789. Blackmore, S. J. (1984). A psychological theory of the out-of-body experience. Journal of Parapsychology, 48, 201-218. Bradley, J. V, (1981). Overcon fidence in ignorant experts. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Saciety, 17, 82-84. Bradley, J. V. (1984). Antinonrobustness: A case study in the so- Gology of science. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 463- 466 Braud, W. (1977). Long~listance drearn and presieep telepathy. In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, & R. L. Morris (Eds.), Research in parapsychology 1976 (pp. 154-155), Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow. Child, 1. L., Kanthamani, H., & Sweeney, V. M. (1977). A simplified experiment in dream telepathy. In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, & R. L. Morris (Eds.), Research in parapsychology 1976 (pp. 91- 93). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow. Crandall, J.E., & Hite, D. D. (1983). Psi-missing and displacement: November 1985 * American Psychologist Evidence for improperly focused psi? Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 77, 209-228. Foulkes, D., Belvedere, E., Masters, R. E. L., Houston, J., Krippner, S., Honorton, C., & Ullman, M. (1972). Long-distance “sensory- bombardment” ESP in dreams: A failure to replicate. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 35, 731-734. Globus, G., Knapp, P., Skinner, J., & Healey, J. (1968). An appraisal of telepathic communication in dreams. Psychophysiology, 4, 365. Hall, C. (1967). Experimente zur telepathischen Becinflussung von Tréumen. (Experiments oo telepathic influence on drcams). Zeitschrift fiir Parapsychologie und Grenzgebiete der Prychologie. 10, 18-47, Hansel, C. E. M. (1980). ESP and parapsychology: A critical re- evaluation. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. Honorton, C., Krippner, S., & Ullman, M. (1972). Telepathic per- ception of art prints under two conditions. Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Associ- ation, 7, 319-320. Hyman, R. (1985). The ganzfeld psi experiment: A critical appraisal, Journal of Parapsychology, 49, 3-49. Irwin, H. J. (1979). Psi and the mind. An information processing approach, Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow, Jahn, R. G. (1982). The persistent paradox of psychic phenomena: An engineering perspective. Proceedings of the Institue of Elec- trical and Electronics Engineers, 70, 136-170, Knppner, S., Hooorton, E., & Ullman, M. (1972). A second pre- cognitive dream study with Malcolm Bessent. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 66, 269-279. Knippoer, S., Honortoa, C., & Ullman, M. (1973), An experiment in dream telepathy with “The Grateful Dead.” Journal of the American Society of Psychosomatic Dentisiry and Medicine, 20, 9-17, Krippner, S., Honorton, C., UUman, M., Masters, R., & Houston, J.(1971). A long-distance “sensory-bombardment” study of ESP in dreams. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 65, 468-475, Knippoer, $., & Uliman, M. (1970). Telepathy and dreams: A con- trolled experiment with clectroencephalogram-electro-oculogram monitoring. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 15], 394- 403. Knippner, S., Ullman, M., & Honorton, C. (1971). A precognitive dream study with a single subject. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 65, 192-203. Lowry, R. (1981). Apparent PK effect on computer-gencrated ran- dom digit series. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 75, 209-220. Marks, D., & Kammann, R. (1980). The psychology of the psychic. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. MosteUer, F., & Bush, R. R. (1954). Selected quantitative techniques. in G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 289-334). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley, Neher, A. (1980). The psychology of transcendence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Puthoff, H. E.. & Targ. R. (1976). A perceptual channel for infor- mauon transfer over kilometer distances: Historical perspective and recent research. Proceedings of the institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, 64, 329-354. Radin, D. 1. (1982). Experimental attempts to infuence pseudo- Fandom number sequences. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 76, 359-374, Rochtschaffen, A. (1970). Sleep and dream states: An experimental design. In R. Cavanna (Ed.), Psi favorable states of consciousness (pp. 87-120). New York: Parapsychology Foundation. Romm, E. G. (1977), When you give a closet oocultist a Pb.D., what stind of research can you expect? The Humanist, 37(3), ~15. Rosenthal, R. (1984). Afeta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverty Hills, CA: Sage. Strauch, I. (1970). Dreams and psi in the laboratory, In R. Cavanna 1229 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08708 : (Ed.), Psi favorable states of consciousness (pp. 46-54). New York: ogy Foundation, Ullman, M. (1969). Telepathy and dreams. Experimental Medicine & Surgery. 27, 19-38. . Ullman, M., & Krippner, S. (1969). A laboratory approach to the fecairmal dimension of paranormal experience: Report ofa con- tory study using the REM PS bni ‘olorical Psychiatry, 1, 259-270. , ta M. Bion (Ea Phe Sige one ermental dream studies oM. . 1, 409-422), New York: New American ibe OP PENOEY (PP. Ullman, M., Krippner, S_, & Feldstein, S. (1966). Experimentally induced telepathic dreams: Two studies using EEG-REM moo- 1230 rd Approved For Release 2060/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 wowing technique. International Journal of Neuropsvchiatry, 2, Uliman, M., Krippoer, S., & Vaughan, A. (1973). Dream telepath Van de Castle, R. L. (1971). The udy of GESP in a group setting by means of dreams. Journal o Parapsychology, 35, 312. Wagner, M. W., & Monnet, M. (19 9). Attitudes of college professors waar aie rar perception. Zetetic Scholar, no. 5, 7-16. man, B. B. (Ed.). (1977). Handbook of parapsychology, New Zusne, Jones, W. H. (1982). Anomalistic psychology: A study . NJ: Erlbaum. ae November 1985 « American Psychologist OR AeA ft te an seam ww A ee £Pz |
‘Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 Perceptual and Motor Skélls, 1981, 52, 727-732. © Perceptual and Motor Skills 1981 LUCID DREAMING VERIFIED BY VOLITIONAL COMMUNICATION DURING REM SLEEP! STEPHEN P. LA BERGE, LYNN E. NAGEL, WILLIAM C. DEMENT, AND VINCENT P. ZARCONE, JR. Stanford University Summary.—The occurrence of lucid dreamiog (dreaming while being con- scious that one is dreaming) has been verified for 3 selected subjects who signaled that they knew they were dreamiog while continuing to dream during unequivocal REM sleep. The signals consisted of particular dream actions having observable concomitants and were performed in accordance with pre- Sleep agreement. The abilicy of proficient lucid dreamers to signal in this matter makes possible a new approach to dream research—~such subjects, while lucid, could carry out diverse dream experiments marking the exact time of particular dream events, allowing derivation of precise psychophysiological correlations and methodical testing of hypotheses. That we sometimes dream while knowing that we are dreaming was first noted by Aristotle. According to accounts of conscious of “lucid” dreaming, as this phenomenon is commonly termed, the dreamer can possess a conscious- ness fully comparable in coherence, clariry, and cognitive complexity to that of the waking state, while continuing to dream vividly (Van Eeden, 1913; Brown, 1936; Green, 1968; Tart, 1979; LaBerge, 1980b). As a result of theoretical assumptions about the nature of dreaming, contemporary dream re- Searchers have questioned whether these experiences take place during sleep or during brief periods of hallucinatory wakefulness. The purpose of the present study was to give an empirical answer to this question by determining the physiological conditions in which lucid dreaming occurs, Our experimenral approach was suggested by previous investigations (An- trobus, ef al., 1965; Salamy, 1970; Brown & Cartwright, 1978), showing that sleeping subjects are sometimes able to produce behavioral responses highly correlated with dreaming. Since these subjects have nor, according to Cart- wright (1978), been conscious of making the responses, these earlier studies do not provide evidence for voluntary action (and thus, reflective conscious- ness) during sleep. However, we reasoned that what could be done uncon- sciously could also be done consciously. The experience of one of us (S.P.L.) indicated that, if subjects became aware they were dreaming, they could also remember to perform previously ‘The writing of this manuscript was supported, in part, by the Holmes Center for Re- search in Holistic Healing. We are grateful to Drs. J. van den Hoed and R. Coleman for helpful comments and Mr. R. Baldwin, Ms..§. Bornstein, and Mr. S. Coburn for expert technical assistance. Request reprints from Stephen P. LaBerge, Ph.D., Sleep Research Center, Stanford University, School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 728 S. P. LA BERGE, ET AL. intended dream actions. Because dreamed gaze and limb adtions have some- times shown very good correlations with polygraphically rodorded eye move- ments and muscle activation (Rechtschaffen, 1973), it seemed plausible thar lucid dreamers could signal that they knew they were dreaming by means of intentional dream actions having observable physiological correlates. METHOD AND RESULTS Five subtjects, trained in the method of lucid dream induction (MILD) described by LaBerge (1980c), were selected on the basis iof their claimed ability to have lucid dreams on demand, and studied for 2 to 20 nonconsecutive nights (see Table 1). Standard polysomnograms (Rechtschaffen & Kales, 1968), i.e. electroencephalogram (EEG), electro-oculogram (EOG), and chin electromyogram (EMG), were recorded, as well as left and right wrist EMG (for signaling). The subjects attempted to follow a predetetmined procedure of signaling whenever they became aware that they were dreaming. A variety of signals were specified, generally consisting of a combination of dreamed eye movements and a pattern of left and right dream-fist clenches, The sub- jects demonstrated the signals during pre-recording calibrations but were asked not to practice further while awake. In the course of the study, 35 lucid dreams were reported subsequent to spontaneous awakening from various stages of sleep as follows: rapid-eye-move- ment (REM) sleep in 32 cases, non-REM (NREM) Stage I twice, and dur- ing the transition from NREM Stage 2 to REM once. The subjects reported signaling during 30 of these lucid dreams. After each recording, the reports mentioning signals were submitted along with the respective polysomnogram to a judge uninformed of the times of the reports. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF LUCID DREAM SIGNALING EXPERIMENTS Subject Nights Lucid dreams reported Lucid dream signals (age, sex) recorded (sleep stage) Verified * /reported S.L. (32 yr., M) 20 17 (REM) 14/15 R.K. (28 yr., M) 4 5 (REM) 3/5 LL. (34 yr., F) 2 1 (REM) 0/0 2 (NREM—1) 0+/1 B.K. (27 yr., F) 6 6 (REM) 5/6 1 (NREM—2/REM) + + 0/0 S.P. (26 yr., M) 2 2 (REM) 2/2 *Blindly matched for correspondence between reported and observed signals. +On awakening from NREM Stage 1 sleep (2 min. after having aw: ed from REM), the subject reported performing the agreed-upon signal during a vivid! and lengthy lucid dream. However, neither her EOG oor wrist EMG showed any sign of the reported signals, as might be expected from the normal lack of correspond berween dream gaze and eye movements during descending Stage 1 sleep (Rechtschaffen, 1973). +-+The subject awoke, in this case, during the transition from Stage 2 to REM. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 LUCID DREAMING 729 The judge was asked to determine whether one (or none) of the polysom- Nographic epochs corresponded with the reported lucid dream signal. In 24 cases, the judge was able to select the appropriate 30-sec. epochs (out of abour 1000 per polysomnogram) on the basis of correspondence between re- ported and observed signals (Table 1). The probability that the selections were correct by chance alone is astronomically small. AU signals associated with lucid dream reports occurred during epochs of unambiguous REM sleep scored according to the standard criteria (Rechrschaffen & Kales, 1968). The lucid dream signals were followed by an average of 1 min. (range: 5 to 450 sec.) of uninterrupted REM sleep. Inspection of the polysomnographic epochs preceding the lucid dream signal reports suggested the failures with blind matching (the “false nega- tives”) were due to high baseline EOG and wrist EMG activity, resulting io an unfavorable signal-to-noise ratio. However, no clear instances of signals were observed except where reported, i.e., there were no "false positives.” On the other hand, in many cases, the reported signals were unequivocal (see Figs. 1 and 2). The most reliable signal was a series of extreme horizontal eye movements (left, right, left, right.) EEG youn u \ Lee ie ee HHA i left wriet \ wrist Fic. 1. Polygraph record of a subject signaling that he knows he is dreaming. The subject awoke approximately 20 sec. after this excerpt and reported recognizing that he was dreaming and performing the agreed upon signal in the dream, ie, he directed his dream gaze upwards momentarily (U) and then executed a sequence of dreamed left (L) and right (R) fist clenches, Morse code for S.L., che subject's initials, Note thet unlike the predominantly horizontal eye movements (above right), the extreme upward eye movement (U) produces characteristic artifact in the EEG channel. All three of the scoring criteria for REM sleep are met: low amplicade chin EMG, episodic REMs, and low-voltage, mixed-frequency EEG (Rechtschaffen & Kales, 1968). The EEG shows occasional 10-Hz (alpha) activity as is normal during REM sleep (Rechtschaffen, 1973); integration of che alpha band-pass filtered EEG showed the amount of alpha activity during the lucid dream did oot significantly differ from chat during the preceding non- lucid portion of the REM period. (Calibrations: 50%V; 5 sec.) 8 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 730 S. P. LA BERGE, ET AL. The most complicated signal (shown in Fig. 1) consites of a single up- ward dream-eye movement followed by a series of lefe (L) and right (R) dream-fist clenches in che order “LLL LRLL.” This fequerte i equivalent to the subject's initials in Morse code (LLL =... = S§; Sie. = L). The complexity of this signal argues against che possibilicy chat the EMG discharges might be spontaneous. That all cases of lucid dream signaling occurred during epochs scored as REM sleep specifies, to a certain extent, the physiology of| lucid dreaming as “a relatively low voltage, mixed frequency EEG in conjun¢tion with episodic REMs and low amplitude electromyogram (EMG)" (Reckhtschaffen & Kales, 1968). This definition allows variation in the three parameters, the details of which will be reported elsewhere. In brief, the variatio terns of the lucid dream polysomnograms were typical sporadic “saw-tooth” waves as well as alpha and theta chy fulness. The occasional, but normal, appearance of alp h: wave usually associated with wakefulness), in the EEG ci raises the possibility that lucid dreaming could occur duri tial arousals or “micro-awakenings” (Schwartz & Lefebvre, alpha rhythm need not be present during lucid dream s by Fig. 2. Furthermore, some of the lucid dreams were in the EEG pat- f REM sleep, ie., , and not wake- thythm (a braio ing REM periods g momentary par- 1973). However, ‘eqaling, as is shown eral minutes long, ruling out any explanation based on the notion of brief inttusions of wakeful- ness, (A) AWAKE (B) LUCID DREAM BEG 8, Ayton i ahead ol gy EMG wrist Fic. 2. Comparison of EEG (C3/A2) during lucid dream si mediately after awakening (A). The continuous waking alpha this subject is clearly distinct from the mixed frequency patterns Although other EEG patterns are compatible with wakefulness, the the pactern oormally exhibited when subjects awaken from sleep. activicy prominent io the lucid dream sample (B) is highly charact (Calibrations: 50 uV; 1 sec.) DISCUSSION ing (B) and im- Oo Hz) activity for during REM sleep. ¢ 2- to 4-Hz EEG istic of REM sleep. fhe illustrated is How do we know that the subjects were “really asleep!’ when they com- municated the signals? Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 If we allow perception of the external world as a
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 LUCID DREAMING 731 criterion of being awake, we can conclude the subjects were indeed asleep: Although they koew they were in the laboratory, this knowledge was a mat- ter of memory, not perception; upon awakening, they reported having been totally in the dream world and not in sensory contact with the external world. Neither were the subjects merely not attending to the environment, €.g., as when absorbed in reading or daydreaming; according to their reports, they were specifically aware of the absence of sensory input from the external world. If subjects were to claim to have been awake while showing physiological signs of sleep, or vice versa, we might doubt their subjective reports. However, in the present case, the subjective accounts and physiological measures are in clear agreement, and it would be extremely unparsimonious to suppose that subjects who believed themselves to be asleep while showing physiological indications of sleep were actually awake. The two principal conclusions of this study are that lucid dreaming can occur during REM sleep and that it is possible for lucid dreamers to signal intentionally to the environment while continuing to dream. These findings have both theoretical and practical consequences. The first result shows that . under certain circumstances, dream cognition during REM sleep can be much more reflective and rational than has been commonly assumed. Evidence in- dicating that lucid dreaming is a learnable skill (LaBerge, 1979, 1980a, 1980b, 1980c), taken with the second result, suggests the feasibiliry of a new ap- proach to dream research: lucidly dreaming subjects could carry out diverse experiments marking the exact time of occurrence of particular dream events, which would allow the derivation of precise psychophysiological correlations aad methodical testing of hypotheses. REFERENCES ANTROBUS, J. S., ANTROBUS, J. S., & FISHER, C. Discrimination of dreaming and non- dreaming sleep. Archsves of General Psychiatry, 1965, 12, 395-401. BROWN, A. E. Dreams in which the dreamer knows he is asleep. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1936, 31, 59-66. BROWN, J. N., & CARTWRIGHT, R. Locating NREM dreaming through instrumental responses. Psychophysiology, 1978, 15, 35-39. CARTWRIGHT, R. [Response to review of Brown and Cartwright (1978).] Sleep Reviews, 1978, 166, 30. : GREEN, C. Lucid dreams. London: Hamilton, 1968. |ABERGE, |S. Lucid dreaming: some personal observations. Sleep Research, 1979, 8, 153. LABERGE, S. P. Induction of lucid dreams. Steep Research, 1980, 9, 138. (a) LABERGE, S. P. Lucid dreaming: an exploratory study of consciousness during sleep. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford Univer., 1980. (Universiry Microfilms Iaternational, 80-24, 691) (b) LABERGE, S. P. Lucid dreaming as a learnable skill: a case study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1980, 51, 1039-1042. (c) RECHTSCHAFFEN, A. The psychophysiology of mental activity during sleep. Io F. J. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 732 S. P. LA BERGE, ET AL. McGuigan & R. A. Schoonover (Eds.), The Psychophysiology of thinking. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Pp. 153-200. RECHTSCHAFFEN, A., & KALES, A. (Eds.) A manuel of standardized terminology, techniques and scoring system for sleep stages of bumen subjects. Washington, D.C: United Seates Government Printing Office, 1968. (Nacional Institute of Health Publication No. 204) SALAMY, J. Jnserumental responding to internal cues associated withiREM sleep. Psy- chonomic Science, 1970, 18, 342-343. SCHWARTZ, B. A., & LEFEBVRE, A. Contacts veille/P.M.O. II: Les /P.M.O. morcelees. Revue a'Electroencepbalographie et de Neurophysiologia Clinique, 1973, 3, 165- 176. TART, C. S. From spontaneous event to lucidity: a review of actempts 6 control nocturnal dreaming. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of dreams. |New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1979. Pp. 226-268. VANEEDEN, F. A. A study of dreams. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 1913, 26, 431-461. [Reprinted in C T. Tare (Ed.), Alvered states of conscious- nest. New York: Wiley, 1969. Pp. 145-158] Accepted April 7, 1981. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 251 [121] COGNITION AND DREAM RESEARCH Edited by Robert E. Haskell, Ph.D. The Journal of | Mind and Behavior SPECIAL ISSUE Volume 7, Numbers 2 and 3 Journal? Spring and Summer 14986, Volume 7, Numbers 2 and Pages 25E EL2E] 258 [28] ISSN 27) O47 ISBN 0.930195 02 7 Lucid Dreaming: Physiological Correlates of Consciousness during REM Sleep Stephen LaBerge Stanford University and The Saybrook Institute Lynne Levitan and William C. Dement Stanford University Reports of lucid dreaming (dreaming while being conscious that one is dreaming) were verified for 13 selected subjects who signaled by means of voluntary eye-movements that they knew they were dreaming while continuing to dream during unequivocal REM sleep. Physiological analysis of the resulting 76 signal-verified lucid dreams (SVLDs) revealed that elevated levels of automatic nervous system activity reliably occured both during and 30 seconds preceding the onset of SVLDs, implicating physiological activation as a necessary condition for reflective consciousness during REM dreaming. The ability of proficient lucid dreamers to deliberately perform dream actions in accordance with pre- sleep agreement makes possible the methodical and precise determination of psycho- physiological correspondence during REM dreaming. It is not the usual case for dreamers to know that they are dreaming while they are dreaming. Nevertheless, significant exceptions sometimes occur when dreamers realize while dreaming that they are dreaming. Although lucid dreaming, as this phenomenon is called, has been known since the time of Aristotle, it has only recently become the subject of scientific inquiry (LaBerge, 1985a). Studies in our laboratory and elsewhere have demonstrated that lucid dreams occur almost exclusively during REM sleep (Dane, 1983; Fenwick, Schatzman, Worsley, Adams, Stone, and Baker, 1984; Hearne, 1978; LaBerge, Nagel, Dement, and Zarcone, 1981; Tyson, Ogilvie, and Hunt, 1984). However, until now little light has been shed on the detailed physiology of dream lucidity. The purpose of the present study was to investigate physiological correlates of REM lucid dreams. The volunteer subjects were seven males and six females (age ranging from The authors would like to chank the Institute of Human Development for financial support. Requests for reprints should be sent to Stephen LaBerge, Ph.D., Sleep Research Center,'Stan- ford University, Stanford, California 94305. Appraved to? RélsaséS000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
252 [122] LaBERGE/LEVI WN DEME iwreved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100440001-2 21-51; mean=28), trained in the MILD technique of lucid dream induction (see LaBerge, 1980). Subjects were selected on the basis of their claimed abil- ity to have lucid dreams on demand and were studied in a sleep laboratory for 2-25 non-consecutive nights. Standard polysomnograms (Rechtschaffen and Kales, 1968) (i.e., electroencephalogram [EEG], electro-oculogram [EOG], and chin electromyogram [EMG)]) were recorded, as well as, in certain cases, a variety of additional physiological measures. Before bedtime on recording nights subjects were instructed to immediately signal whenever they realized they were dreaming. A variety of signals were specified, typically two pairs of extreme horizontal eye-movements (left, right, i j eived additional instructions to carry OF LUCID DREAMING 253 [123] . (HR) and respiration rate (RR) were also determined for SVLDs recorded with the relevant measures. For the first lucid epoch (during signals), STATE was unequivocal REM in 70 cases (92%). The remaining six SVLDs were less than 30" long and hence technically unscorable by the orthodox (Rechtshaffen and Kales, 1968) criteria. For these cases, the entire SVLD was treated as a single epoch and scored as if they were of standard length; with this modification, all qualified as REM. The lucid dream signals were followed by an average of 115 seconds (range: 5 to 490 seconds) of uninterrupted REM sleep. Anecodotal reports indicate that lucid dreams are sometimes initiated from out specific activities in the dream state once they became lucid. In the course of the study, 88 lucid dreams were reported subsequent to spontaneous awakenings from the following stages of sleep, scored according to the standard criteria (Rechtschaffen and Kales, 1968): REM in 83 cases (94.3%), NREM Stage-1 in four cases (4.5%), and at the transition between NREM Stage-2 and REM in one case (1.1%). The subjects reported signaling in 80 cases (90.9%), all following REM awakenings (96.4% of the REM reports). After each recording, reported lucid dream signals were verified by means of a blind judging procedure previously detailed elsewhere (LaBerge et al., 1981). Briefly, the reports mentioning lucidity signals were submitted along with the respective polysomnograms to a judge who attempted to determine which 30" epoch of the physiological records corresponded to a given reported signal. The judge (blind to the times the reports were made) successfully matched 76 (95%) of the reported signals to an epoch from the correct REM period. The probability that such a large number of matches could have been made by chance is infinitesmally small. The 13 subjects contributed varying numbers of signal-validated lucid dreams (SVLDs) ranging from 1-25, each with the median number of SVLDs per subject being four. Although four subjects furnished a single SVLD each while another two subjects together supplied 43 (56% of the total), the number of SVLDs contributed by the two sexes did not significantly differ. Potential problems arising from the unequal N of observations per subject were averted by statistically analysing summary scores for all physiological variables (i-e., the mean of each subject’s mean values, yielding a maximum N= 13). The polysomnograms corresponding to each of the SVLDs were sleep- staged. Additionally, every SVLD REM period was divided into 30 second epochs aligned with the lucidity onset signal; up to 60 epochs of data from the preceding (non-lucid) REM period and 15 epochs from the lucid dream were collected. For each epoch, sleep stage (STATE) was scored and rapid eye movements (EM) were counted; if scalp skin-potential responses were observable as artifacts in the EEG, these were also counted (SP). Heart rate the-waking-state, but _more-frequently_from-the-dream-state (Green, 1968; LaBerge, 1985a). Since lucid dreams initiated in these two ways would be ex- pected to differ physiologically, SVLDs were dichotomously classified as either “Wake-initiated” (WILD) or “Dream-initiated” (DILD), depending on whether or not the reports mentioned a transient awakening (i-e., conscious percep- tion of the external environment). Fifty-five (72%) of the SVLDs were classified as DILDs and che remaining 21 (28%) as WILDs. For all 13 subjects, DILDs were more common than WILDs (binomial test, p<.0001). Compared to DILDs, WILDs were more frequently immediately preceded by physiological indications of arousal (y?=38.3, Idf, p<.0001), establishing the construct valid- ity of the classification dimension. Figure 1 illustrates a typical DILD. Four channels of physiological data (cen- ” tral EEG [C,-A,], left and right eye-movements [LOC and ROC], and chin muscle tone [EMG]) from the last 8 minutes of a 30 minute REM period are shown. Upon awakening the subject reported having made five eye move- ment (EM) signals (labeled 1-5). The first signal (1, two pairs of left-right EMs) marked the onset of lucidity. During the following 90 seconds the subject “flew about” exploring his dream world until he believed he had awakened, at which point he made the signal for awakening (2, four pairs of left-right EMs). After another 90 seconds the subject realized he was still dreaming and signaled (3) with three pairs of EMs. Realizing that this was too many, he correctly signaled with two pairs (4). Finally, upon awakening two minutes later he signaled appropriately (5, four pairs of EMs). Figure 2 illustrates six channels of physiology (left and right temporal EEG [T3 and T4], left and right eye-movements [LOC and ROC], chin muscle tone [EMG], and electrocardiogram [ECG)) for a typical WILD. The subject awoke at | and after 40 seconds returned to REM sleep at 2, and realized he was dreaming 15 seconds later at 3. Next he carried out the agreed-upon dream actions, singing between signals 3 and 4, and counting between signals 4 and 5. This allowed comparison of left and right hemisphere activation dur- ing the two tasks (LaBerge and Dement, 1982a). Physiological comparison of lucid versus non-lucid epochs revealed that lucid Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
254 [124] Loc ROC Oa EMG nner tenet atttrn anette pele a ann Od T3 AR a iran Manat Re tena neal aI eed DPA R aA a ant tearm Ppa tytn MR ty stone “er T eyo Pt elma pk i marten rea at iP Ate yt fh, 4 s i : ae ‘ vs Weg EMG . ECG AAMAS b Aa hab bbb obbbll £44. ta debidbedibdehbbbhbbabbhdslabberscccenbihebshead a eee eee Be AN are me mt ati eee call at A (+ . 7 t ere | | Fale, ef [are er ean nein ih we J SEE | 4adulis PEDO US ADO Ubaaanra een C aE COP PAUSE LOPesseSSNORURNSE FFSENEVUFEFSFVESYTESSTUSNT FSTTTVTENTVINETT TINT TON wll Figure 2: A typical lucid dream initiated from a transient awakening during REM (WILD). Saibrasons are 0 nV and 5 geese loved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RD LaBERGEAPPRROME RHA Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 (1b DREAMING 255 [125] Table 1 Comparisons of Physiological Variables for Lucid and Non-lucid Epochs eee Vartables are averaged over REM Periods and subjects. L = mean value for lucid epochs; N = mean value for non-lucid epochs; LND=mean value of difference score for lucid minus non-lucid epochs. REM density (EM) EML > EMN (t(12)=4.36; p<.0001] EMLND > 0 [c(12)=3.93; p<.002] Respiration Rate (RR) RRL > RRN [(7}=4.07; p<.004] RRLND > 0 [(7)=4.49; p<.004] Heart Rate (HR) HRL > HRN [(8)=2.54; p<.025] HRLND > 0 [(8)=2.91; p<.01] Skin Potential (SP) SPL > SPN [(8) = 3.00; p<.01] SPLND > [(8)=2.41; p<.01] epochs of SVLD REM periods are characterized by significantly higher levels of physiological activation than are epochs of preceding non-lucid REM from the same REM period (see Table 1). In order to follow the temporal variations of physiology correlated with the development and initiation of lucidity, for each SVLD REM period the physiological variables were converted to Z-scores and averaged across dreams and subjects. Figure 3 is a histogram of the resultant mean Z-scores for the ten minutes before and the five minutes after the initiation of lucidity. Note the highly significant increases in physiological activation during the 30 seconds before and after lucidity onset. Physiological data (EM, RR, HR, and SP) were scored for 61 control non-lucid REM periods (NLREMPs), derived from the same 13 subjects, in order to allow comparison with SVLDs (LDREMPs). Mean values for EM and SP were signifi- cantly higher for LDREMPs than NLREMP controls (RR and HR did not differ). If lucid dream probability (LDPROB) were constant across time during REM periods, lucid dreams should occur most frequently in the first few minutes of REM. On this hypothesis, LDPROB should be a monotonically decreas- ing function of time into REM, following the survivor function of mean REM period lengths (REMLEN). Although REMLEN proved to be an excellent predictor of LDPROB (r=.97, p<.005), our data showed that LDPROB does not reach its maximum before about five to seven minutes into REM. The discrepancy between theory and observation is particularly acute for WILDs: only one out of 21 WILDs occurred during the first four minutes of REM, suggesting that there must be another factor contributing to the distribution P96-00789R003100140001-2
256 [126] LaBERGE/LEVITAN/DEMENT PHYSIOLOGY OF LUCID DREAMING 257 [127] Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 10 08 O6 04 -0.2 -0.4 “50 -40 -30 -20 -10 00 10 20 309 40 50 RESPIRATION RATE of lucid dreams within REM periods. Having found that lucid dreams reliably occur during activated REM, we predicted that LDPROB would share significant variance with measures of CNS activation. Since it has been reported that eye-movement density starts at a low level at the beginning of REM periods and increases until it reaches a peak after approximately five to seven minutes (Aserinsky, 1971), we hypothesized that LDPROB should follow a parallel development. Accor- dingly, we found that mean eye-movement density (EM) correlated positive- ly and significantly with LDPROB (r=.66, p<.01). In a regression of LDPROB on EM and REMLEN, both variables entered significantly, giving an adjusted multiple R=.98 (p<.005). "50-40 -30 -20 -10 00 10 20 30 40 50 SKIN POTENTIAL 1.0 0935 oo — ; Le. “5.00 -406 -30 -20 -10 00 10 20 360 40 30 Figure 3: Histograms of mean Z-scores for EM, RR, HR, and SP. Bins are 30 seconds in length with t=0 representing the signaled onset of lucidity. Ns vary with variable and bin, but all values are averaged across lucid dreams and subjects. (*p<.05) most exclusively” towards the end of the night (Garfield, 1975; Green, 1968; LaBerge, 1985a). Cohen (1979) has argued that the left hemisphere shows a gradual increase in dominance across the night. Since left-hemisphere abstract symbelic functions are *»-ndoubtedly crucial for lucid dreaming, Cohen's GILD hypothesis led us to predict (LaBerge, 1985b) that the probability of dream lucidity should increase with time of night. For each subject a median split for total REM time was determined; 11 of the subjects had more lucid dreams in the later half of REM than in the earlier half (binomial test; p<.01). For the combined sample, relative lucidity probability was calculated for REM periods 1-6 of the night by dividing the total number of lucid dreams observed in a given REM period by the cor- responding total time in stage REM for the same REM period. A regression analysis clearly demonstrated that relative lucidity probability was a linear function of ordinal REM period number (r=.98, p<.0001). No measure of ac- tivation (EM, RR, HR, SP) even approached significance when entered into the regression equation. These results strongly support the conclusion that lucid dreams are more likely to occur in later REM periods than in earlier ones—provided, of course, that sleep is continued long enough. Our demonstration that lucid dreams are reliably associated with elevated levels of physiological activation, may raise a question: why is lucid dream- ing the exception rather than the rule? After all, physiological activation ade- quate for lucidity probably occurs every night during most REM periods; why then do we not become lucid more frequently? It appears plausible that we usually lack an appropriate pre-sleep, and thus, REM cognitive set (i-e., the intention to become conscious of our dreaming). Although the importance of physiological factors in the genesis of dream lucidity is clear, it seems equally clear that psychological factors are no less important. It is also worth noting that the ability of lucid dreamers to deliberately per- form dream actions in accordance with pre-sleep agreement makes possible an experimental paradigm allowing the methodical and precise determina- Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 Conscious Mind, Sleeping Brain Perspectives on Lucid Dreaming Edited by Jayne Gackenbach University of Northern Iowa Cedar Fails, lowa and Stephen LaBerge Stanford University Stanford, California Pade Plenum Press ¢ New York and London The Psychophysiology of Lucid Dreaming STEPHEN LABERGE LUCID DREAMING PHYSIOLOGICALLY VERIFIED Although we are usually unaware of the fact that we are dreaming while we are dreaming, at times a remarkable exception occurs, and our consciousness be- comes lucid enough for us to realize that we are dreaming. Lucid dreamers report being able to freely remember the circumstances of waking life, to think clearly, and to act deliberately upon reflection, all the while experiencing a dream world that seems vividly real (Green, 1968; LaBerge, 1985a). This is all in contrast to the usual characterization of dreams as typically lacking any reflective awareness or true volition (Rechtschaffen, 1978). Indeed, the concept of conscious Sleep can seem so self-contradictory and paradoxical to certain ways of thinking that some theoreticians have considered lucid dreams impossible and even absurd. Probably the most extreme example of this point of view is provided by Malcolm (1959), who argued that if being asleep means experiencing nothing whatsoever, ‘‘dreams’’ are not experiences during sleep at all but only the reports we tell after awakening. This concept of sleep led Malcolm to conclude that the idea that someone might reason while asleep is ‘tmeaningless.’’ From here, the philosopher reasoned that if ‘‘I] am dreaming” could express a judgment it would imply the judgment ‘I am asleep,’ and therefore the absurdity of the latter proves the absurdity of the former.”’ Thus “‘the supposed judgement that one is dreaming"’ is ‘‘unintelligible’’ and ‘‘an inherently absurd form of words (Malcolm, 1959, pp. 48-50) The point of this example is to show the skeptical light in which accounts of lucid dreaming were viewed before physiological proof of the reality of the STEPHEN LABERGE « Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
~—_—_Sehwartz- 136 STEPHEN LABERGE psYCHOMn ron POP De Dineen ohenomenon made phitosophicaSRPFSV.EG,£ OF, Release, 2000/08/08 : GIA-ROP9FAATESRANS 1001400 0dn2 ofthe 34 nights ofthe study, 39 sional reports in which dreamers claimed to have been fully conscious that they were dreaming while they were dreaming, the orthodox view in sleep and dream research as. sumed (until very recently) that anecdotal accounts of lucid dreams must be somehow spurious. Nevertheless, people still reported dreaming the impossible dream, so the question was raised: ‘‘Under what presumably abnormal physiological conditions do reports of ‘lucid’ dreams occur?’’ In the absence of empirical ence bearing on the question, speculation largely favored two answers: either wakefulness o¢ NREM sleep. Most sleep researchers were apparently inclined to accept Hartmann’s ‘‘impression”’ that lucid dreams were *‘not typical parts of dreamin thought, but rather brief arousals’’ (Hartmann, 1975, p. 74; cf. Berger, 1977). jucid dreams were reported subsequent to spontaneous awaking from various stages of sleep as follows: REM sleep 32 times, NREM Stage-1, twice, and during the transition from NREM Stage-2 to REM, once. The subjects reported signaling during 30 of these lucid dreams. After each recording, the reports mentioning signals were submitted along with the respective polysomnograms to a judge uninformed of the times of the reports. In 24 cases (90%), the judge was able to select the appropriate 30-second epoch on the basis of correspondence between reported and observed signals. All signals associated with lucid dream reports occurred during epochs of unambiguous REM sleep scored according to the conventional criteria (Rechtschaffen & Kales, 1968). A replication of this study with two additional subjects and 20 more lucid dreams produced identical results (LaBerge, Nagel, Taylor, Dement, & Zarcone, com- mon during REM sleep and proposed these ‘‘microawakenings”’ as the physiolog- ical basis for lucid dream reports. Although no one had put forward any evidence for this mechanism, it seems to have been the received opinion (cf. Foulkes, 1974) up until the last few years. A similar view was put forward by Antrobus, Antrobus, and Fisher (1965) who predicted that recognition by the dreamer of the fact that he or she is dreaming would either immediately terminate the dream or continue in NREM sleep. Likewise, Hall (1977) speculated that lucid dreams may represent ‘‘a transition from Stage-1 REM to Stage-4 mentation”’ (p. 312). Green (1968) seems to have been alone in reasoning that, because lucid dreams usually arise from nonlucid dreams, ‘‘we may tentatively expect to find lucid dreams occur- ring, as do other dreams, during the ‘paradoxical’ phase of sleep” (p. 128). Empirical evidence began to appear in the late 1970s supporting Green’s speculation that lucid dreams occur during REM sleep. Based on standard sleep recordings of two subjects who reported a total of three lucid dreams upon awakening from REM periods, Ogilvie, Hunt, Sawicki, and McGowan (1978) cautiously concluded that ‘‘it may be that lucid dreams begin in REM”’ (p. 165). However, no proof was given that the reported lucid dreams themselves had in fact occurred during the REM sleep immediately preceding the awakenings and reports. Indeed, the subjects themselves were uncertain about when their lucid dreams had taken place. What was needed to unambiguously establish the physi- ological status of lucid dreams was some sort of on-the-scene report from the dream, an idea first suggested by Tart (1965). LaBerge and his colleagues at Stanford University provided this verification by arranging for subjects to signal the onset of a lucid dream immediately upon realizing that they were dreaming by performing specific patterns of dream actions that would be observable on a polygraph (i.e., eye movements and fist clenches). Using this approach, LaBerge, Nagel, Dement, and Zarcone (1981) reported that the occurrence of lucid dreaming during unequivocal REM sleep had been demonstrated for five subjects. After being instructed in the method of lucid dream induction (MILD) described by LaBerge (1980b), the subjects were 1981). LaBerge et al. argued that their investigations demonstrated that lucid dreaming usually (though perhaps not exclusively) occurs during REM sleep. This conclusion is supported by research carried out in several other laboratories (Dane, 1984; Fenwick et al., 1984; Hearne, 1978; Ogilvie, Hunt, Kushniruk, & Newman, 1983). Ogilvie et al. (1983) reported the physiological state preceding 14 spon- taneous lucidity signals as unqualified REM in 12 (86%) of the cases; of the remaining 2 cases, | was ‘‘ambiguous’’ REM and the other appeared to be wakefulness. Keith Hearne and Alan Worsley collaborated on a pioneering study of lucid dreaming in which the latter spent 50 nonconsecutive nights in the sleep lab while the former monitored the polygraph. Worsley reported signaling in eight lucid dreams, all of which were described by Heame (1978) as having occurred during unambiguous REM sleep. Brylowski, LaBerge, Levitan, Booth, and Nelson (1986) monitored a single skilled lucid dreamer for four nights while measuring the subject’s H-reflex. The reflex was evoked every 5 seconds and later measured and analyzed for dif- ferences in suppression between lucid and nonlucid REM. They found that the H-reflex was significantly suppressed during lucid REM as compared to nonlucid REM (p < .00i). Because H-reflex suppression is often considered a unique hallmark of REM sleep, this finding should finally lay to rest the notion that lucid dreams do not occur during REM. However, demonstrations that signaling of lucid dreams occurs during REM sleep may raise another kind of question for some readers: What exactly do we mean by the assertion that lucid dreamers are ‘‘asleep?"’ Perhaps these “*dream- ers’’ are not really dreamers, as some argued in the last century; or perhaps this ‘‘sleep’’ is not really sleep, as some have argued in this century. How do. we know that lucid dreamers are ‘‘really asleep’’ when they signal? If we consider Perception of the external world as a criterion of being awake (to the external world), we can conclude that they are actually asleep (to the external world) because, although they know they are in the laboratory, this knowledge is a Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : QIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2