Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  :   CIA-RDR96-00789R003100140001-2 
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  held  of  knowledge 
within  which  the  erroneous  opinion  falls.  This  finding 
may  help  in  understanding  why  the  authors  or  some 
of  these  books  did  not  find  it  necessary  to  consider 
critically  their  own  erroneous  statements. 
A   very  considerable  proportion  of  psychologists 
have  a  potential  interest  in  the  question  of  ESP.  In  a 
recent  survey  (Wagner  A   Monnet,  1 979)  of  university 
professors  in  various  fields,_34%  of  psychologists  were 
found  to  consider  ESPcither  an  established  fact  ora 
Cicely  possibility,  exactly  the  «ame 
sidered  it  an  impossibility.  In  this  survey,  psychologists 
lesslrequentlv 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  firom  others  in 
their  tendency  to  consider  ESP  an  impossibility.  Of 
natural  scientists,  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. 
Evidence  for  improperly  focused  psi?  Journal  of  the  American 
Society  for  Psychical  Research.  77.  209-228. 
Foulkcs,  D.,  Belvedere,  E„  Master*,  R.  E   L.,  Houston,  J.,  Krippner, 
S.,  Hon ort on,  C.,  St  Ullman,  M.  (1972).  Lon^ -distance  "aensory- 
bom  bard  men  t"  ESP  in  dreams:  A   failure  lo  replicate.  Perceptual 
and  Motor  Skills .  35.  73 1   -734. 
Globus,  G.,  Knapp,  P„  Skinner,  J.,  Sc  Healey,  J.  (1968).  An  appraisal 
of  telepathic  communication  in  dreams.  Psychophysiology,  4,  365. 
Hall,  C.  (1967).  Experimcme  zur  lelepathischcn  Beeinflussung  von 
Trtumen.  (Experiments  on  telepathic  influence  on  dreams). 
Zeitschrift  fur  Parapsychologie  und  Grenzgebiete  der  Psychologic 
10.  18-47, 
Hansel,  C.  E   M.  (1980).  ESP  and  parapsychology':  A   critical  re - 
evaluation.  Buffalo,  NY:  Prometheus. 
Honorton,  G,  Krippnet,  S.,  St  UUman,  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  ganzfcld  psi  experiment:  A   critical  appraisal, 
Journal  of  Parapsychology,  49,  3-49. 
Irwin,  H.  J.  (1979).  Psi  and  the  mind :  An  information  processing 
approach.  Mctucben,  NJ:  Scarecrow. 
Jahn,  R.  G.  (1982).  The  persistent  paradox  of  psychic  phenomena: 
An  engineering  perspective.  Proceedings  of  the  Institute  of  Elec- 
trical and  Electronics  Engineers ,  70.  1 36- 1 70. 
Krippnet,  S.,  Honorton,  E.,  St  UUman,  M.  (1972).  A   second  pre- 
cognitive  dream  study  with  Malcolm  Bess cm.  Journal  of  the 
American  Society  for  Psychical  Research.  66.  269-279. 
Krippner,  5.,  Honorton,  G,  St  UUman,  M.  (1973).  An  experiment 
in  dream  telepathy  with  *Tbe  Grateful  Dead"  Journal  of  the 
American  Society  of  Psychosomatic  Dentistry  and  Medicine  20 
9-17. 
Krippner,  S.,  Hon  on  on,  C.,  UUman,  M.,  Masters,  R.,  Sl  Houston, 
J.  ( 1 97 1 ).  A   long-distance  "sensory-bombardment"  study  of  ESP 
in  dreams.  Journal  of the  American  Society  for  Psychical  Research 
65.  468-475. 
Krippnet,  S.,  St  UUman,  M.  (1970).  Telepathy  and  dreams:  A   con- 
trolled experiment  with  c]cctrocrxephak>gram-el 
monitoring.  Journal  of  Nervous  and  Mental  Disease,  1 51,  394- 
REFERENCES 
Akers.  G   (1984).  Methodological  criticisms  of  parapsychology  In 
S.  Krippner  (Ed.).  Advances  in  parapsychdogical  research  (Vol. 
4,  pp.  1 12-164).  Jefferson,  NC:  McFarland. 
Aicock,  J.  E.  ( 198 1 ).  Parapsychology,  science  or  magic?  A   psycho- 
logical  perspective.  New  York:  Perga mon  Press. 
Aicock,  J.  E.  (1983).  Bringing  anomalies  back  into  psychology. 
Contemporary*  Psychology.  28.  351-352. 
Aycroff.  F.,  &   Abctson,  R.  P.  (1976).  ESP  and  ESB:  Belief  in  persona) 
success  at  mental  telepathy.  Journal  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. 
Blackmorc,  S.  J,  (1984).  A   psychological  theory  of  the  out-of-body 
experience.  Journal  of  Parapsychology.  48,  201-218. 
Bradley,  J.  V,  ( 1 9S I ).  Over  con  6dcnce  in  ignorant  experts.  Bulletin 
of  the  Psychonomic  Society,  17.  82-84. 
Bradley  J.  V.  (1984).  Aminonrobustncss:  A   case  study  in  the  so- 
ciology of  science.  Bulletin  of  the  Psychonomic  Society.  22,  463- 
466. 
Brand,  W.  (1977).  Long-distance  dream  and  presleep  telepathy.  In 
J.  D.  Morris,  W.  C.  Roll,  St  R,  L   Morris  (Eds.),  Research  in 
parapsychology  1976  (pp.  154-155).  Mctucben,  NJ:  Scarecrow. 
Child,  I.  L,  Kamhamani,  H.,  St  Svxcoc y,  Y   M.  (1977).  A   simplified 
experiment  in  dream  telepathy.  In  J.  D.  Morris,  W.  G.  RoU,  & 
R.  L.  Morris  (Eds.),  Research  in  parapsychology*  1976  (pp.  91- 
93).  Metuchen.  NJ:  Scarecrow. 
Crandall,  J.  E,,  St  Hite,  D.  D.  (1983).  Psi- missing  and  displacement: 
403. 
Krippner,  S.,  UUman,  M.,  St  Honorton,  C.  (1971).  A   precognitive 
dream  study  with  a   single  subject  Journal  of  the  American  Society 
for  Psychical  Research,  65.  192-203. 
Lcwry,  R.  (1981).  Apparent  PK  effect  on  computer-generated  ran- 
dom digit  series.  Journal  of  the  American  Society  for  Psychical 
Research.  75,  209-220, 
Marks,  D.,  St  Kammann,  R.  (1980).  The  psychology  of  the  psychic . 
Buffalo,  NY:  Prometheus. 
MosteUet,  F.,  St  Bush,  R,  R.  (1954).  Selected  quantitative  techniques. 
In  G.  Undzey  (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.,  St  Targ.  R.  (1976).  A   perceptual  channel  for  infor- 
mation 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).  Ex  peri  mental  attempts  to  influence  pseudo- 
random number  sequences.  Journal  of  the  American  Society  for 
Psychical  Research,  76.  359-374. 
Rcchtschaffen,  A.  ( 1 970),  Sleep  and  dream  states:  An  experimental 
design.  In  R.  Cavanna  (Ed.),  Pst  favorable  states  of  consciousness 
(pp.  87-120).  New  Yxlc  Parapsychology  Foundation. 
Romm,  E   G.  (1977).  When  you  give  a   closet  occultist  a   Pb.D., 
jdiat^kind  of  research  can  you  expect?  The  Humanist .  37(3), 
Rosenthal,  R_  (1984).  Meta-analytic  procedures  for  social  research 
Beverly  Hills,  CA:  Sage. 
Strauch,  I.  ( 1 970).  Dreams  and  psi  in  the  laboratory.  I   n   R.  Cavanna 
November  1985  •   American  Psychologist 
1229 
Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  :   CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
Approved  For  Release  2000/08*08  :   CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 
(Ed.X  Psi favorable  states  of  consciousness  (pp.  46-54).  New  Vbric 
Parapsychology  Foundation. 
UUman,  M.  (1969).  Telepathy  and  dreams*  Experimental  Medicine 
A   Surgery,  27.  19-38. 
UUman,  M.,  4   Krippner,  S.  (1969).  A   Ubontory  approach  to  the 
ooctumiJ  dimension  of  paranormal  experience:  Report  of  a   con- 
firmatory study  using  the  REM  monitoring  technique  Biological 
Psychiatry,  J .  259-270. 
Uliman,  M.,  4   Krippoer,  S.  (1978).  Experimental  dream  studies. 
In  M.  Ebon  (Ed.),  The  Signet  handbook  of  parapsychology  (pp 
409-422).  New  Yoric  New  American 
Ullman,  M.t  Krippna;  4   Fcktarin,  S.  (1966).  Experimentally 
induced  telepathic  dreams:  Two  studies  using  EEG-REM  moo- 
horing  technique.  International 
420-437. 
UUraan,  M.,  Krippna;  S.,  4   \fcug 
New  Yaric:  Macmillan. 
Vkn  dc  Castle.  R.  L.  (1971).  The  . 
by  means  of  dreams.  Journal  oi 
W^net.  M.  4   Monnet,  M.  (191 
toward  extrasensory  perception 
Wolman,  B.  B.  (Ed.).  (1977).  H< 
York:  Van  Nostrand  Reinhold. 
Ziune,  L,  4   Jooes,  W.  H.  (1982) 
of  extraordinary  phenomena  of  \ 
.  NJ:  Eribaum. 
Journal  of  Neuropsychiatry,  2. 
lun,  A.  (1973).  Dream  telepathy. 
iudy  of  GESP  in  a   group  setting 
n   Parapsychology ■  35.  312. 
9).  Attitudes  of  oollcgc  professors 
Zetetic  Scholar,  no.  5,  7-16. 
faidbook  of  parapsychology.  New 
Anomalistic  psychology:  A   study 
bpiavior  and  experience .  Hillsdale, 
1230  . 
 November  1985  • 
Approved  For  Release  2<QQ0/08/08  :   CIA-RDP96-00789RO 
American  Psychologist 
03100140001-2
Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  :   CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 
Perceptual  and  Motor  Skills,  1981,  52,  727-732.  ©   
Perceptual  and  Motor  Skills  1981 
LUCID  DREAMING  VERIFIED  BY  VOLITIONAL  COMMUNICATION 
DURING  REM  SLEEP1 
STEPHEN  P.  LABERGE,  LYNN  E.  NAGEL,  WILLIAM  C   DEMENT, 
AND  VINCENT  P.  ZARCONE,  JR. 
Stanford  University 
Summary. — The  occurrence  of  lucid  dreaming  (dreaming  while  being  con- 
scious that  one  is  dreaming)  has  been  verified  for  3  selected  subjects  who 
signaled  that  they  knew  they  were  dreaming  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  ability  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  or  "lucid"  dreaming, 
as  this  phenomenon  is  commonly  termed,  the  dreamer  can  possess  a   conscious- 
ness fully  comparable  in  coherence,  clarity,  and  cognitive  complexity  to  that 
of  the  waking  state,  while  continuing  to  dream  vividly  (Van  Eeden,  1913; 
Brown,  1936;  Green,  1968;  Tan,  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  experimental  approach  was  suggested  by  previous  investigations  (An- 
trobus,  et  al.,  1965;  Salamv,  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.PJL. )   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.  S.  Bornstein,  and  Mr.  S.  Coburn  for 
expert  technical  assistance.  Request  reprints  from  Stephen  P.  LaBerge  PhD  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  ad 
times  shown  very  good  correlations  with  polygraphically  reci 
menrs  and  muscle  activation  (Rechtschaffen,  1973),  it  seem 
lucid  dreamers  could  signal  that  they  knew  they  were  dream  i 
intentional  dream  actions  having  observable  physiological  o 
tions  have  some- 
orded  eye  move- 
ed  plausible  that 
ing  by  means  of 
drrelates. 
Method  and  Results 
Five  subtjects,  trained  in  the  method  of  lucid  dream  induction  (MILD) 
described  by  LaBerge  (1980c),  were  selected  on  the  basis 
ability  to  have  lucid  dreams  on  demand,  and  studied  for  2  to  20  nonconsecutive 
nights  (see  Table  1).  Standard  polysomnograms  (Rechtsthaffen  &   Kales, 
1968),  i.e.,  electroencephalogram  (EEG),  electro-oculogram  iEOG),  and  chin 
electromyogram  (EMG),  were  recorded,  as  well  as  left  and  right  wrist  EMG 
(for  signaling).  The  subjects  attempted  to  follow  a  predetei mined  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 
nor  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 
ment  (REM)  sleep  in  32  cases,  non-REM  (NREM)  Stage  jj  twice,  and  dur- 
ing the  transition  from  NREM  Stage  2  to  REM  once. 
The  subjects  reported  signaling  during  30  of  these  luci|  dreams.  After 
each  recording,  the  reports,  mentioning  signals  were  submined  along  with  the 
respective  polysomnogram  to  a  judge  uninformed  of  the  tim^s  of  the  reports. 
TABLE  1 
Summary  of  Lucid  Dream  Signaling  Experiments 
Subject  Nights  Lucid  dreams  reported 
( age,  sex )   recorded  ( sleep  stage) 
Lucid  dream  signals 
verified  */reported 
S.L.  (32  yr.,  M) 
. K.  
( 
yr.,  
M) 
L.L  
(34  
yr.,  
F) 
B.K.  (27  yr.,  F) 
. P,  
(26  
yr.,  
M) 
17  (REM) 
5  (REM) 
1  (REM) 
2  (NREM  — 1 ) 
6  (REM) 
1  (NREM— 2/REM)  -f  -f 
2  (REM) 
14/15 
3/5 
0/0 
0+/1 
5/6 
0/0 
2/2 
•Blindly  matched  for  correspondence  between  reported  and  observed 
+On  awakening  from  NREM  Stage  1   sleep  (2  min.  after  having  awi_ 
the  subject  reported  performing  the  agreed-upon  signal  during  a   vivid 
dream.  However,  neither  her  EOG  nor  wrist  EMG  showed  any  sigh 
signals,  as  might  be  expected  from  the  normal  lack  of  correspondence 
gaze  and  eye  movements  during  descending  Stage  1  sleep  (Reditschafj 
+   4- The  subject  awoke,  in  this  case,  during  the  transition  from  NREM 
Signals. 
ed  from  REM), 
and  lengthy  lucid 
|n  of  the  reported 
between  dream 
|fen,  1973). 
Stage  2  to  REM. 
rakem 
Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  :   CIA-RDP96-00789RQ03100140001-2
Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  :   CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 
LUGD  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 
about  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.  All  signals  associated 
with  lucid  dream  reports  occurred  during  epochs  of  unambiguous  REM  sleep 
scored  according  to  the  standard  criteria  ( Rechtschaffen  &   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  in 
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.) 
g   'rtti 
s»   i — 
wrift 
Fig.  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,  i.e.,  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,  the  subject’s  initials.  Note  that  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  amplitude  chin  EMG,  episodic  REMs,  and 
low-voltage,  mixed -frequency  E EG  (Rechtschaffen  &   Kales,  1968).  The  EEG  shows 
occasional  10-Hz  (alpha)  activity  as  is  normal  during  REM  sleep  (Rechtschaffen,  1973); 
integration  of  the  alpha  band-pass  filtered  EEG  showed  the  amount  of  alpha  activity 
during  the  lucid  dream  did  not  significantly  differ  from  that  during  the  preceding  non- 
lucid  portion  of  the  REM  period.  ( Calibrations :   50^V;  5  sec.) 
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)  consisted  of  a   single  up- 
ward dream-eye  movement  followed  by  a  series  of  left  (L)  and  right  (R) 
dream-fist  clenches  in  the  order  "LLL  LRLL"  This  sequence  is  equivalent  to 
the  subject’s  initials  in  Morse  code  (LLL  =   ...=:  S;  LRLL  =   .«..= 
L).  The  complexity  of  this  signal  argues  against  the  possibility  that  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  conjunction  with  episodic 
REMs  and  low  amplitude  electromyogram  (EMG)”  (Red tschaffen  &   Kales, 
1968).  This  definition  allows  variation  in  the  three  parsmeters,  the  details 
of  which  will  be  reported  elsewhere.  In  brief,  the  variation  in  the  EEG  pat- 
terns of  the  lucid  dream  polysomnograms  were  typical  of  REM  sleep,  i.e., 
sporadic  ’saw-tooth”  waves  as  well  as  alpha  and  theta  rhytiim,  and  not  wake- 
fulness. The  occasional,  but  normal,  appearance  of  alpha  rhythm  (a  brain 
wave  usually  associated  with  wakefulness),  in  the  EEG  during  REM  periods 
raises  the  possibility  that  lucid  dreaming  could  occur  duriiig  momentary  par- 
tial arousals  or  "micro-awakenings”  (Schwartz  &   Lefebvre,  1973).  However, 
alpha  rhythm  need  not  be  present  during  lucid  dream  signaling,  as  is  shown 
by  Fig.  2.  Furthermore,  some  of  the  lucid  dreams  were  several  minutes  long, 
ruling  out  any  explanation  based  on  the  notion  of  brief  innusions  of  wakeful- 
ness. 
(A)  AWAKE 
EEC 
(b)  lucid  dream 
£  E   6   \ 
 '  
K  | 
Fig.  2.  Comparison  of  EEG  (C3/A2)  during  lucid  dream  signaling  (B)  and  im- 
mediately after  awakening  (A).  The  continuous  waking  alpha  <10  Hz)  activity  for 
this  subject  is  dearly  distinct  from  the  mixed  frequency  patterns  during  REM  sleep. 
Although  other  EEG  patterns  are  compatible  with  wakefulness,  the  tracing  illustrated  is 
the  pattern  normally  exhibited  when  subjects  awaken  from  sleep.  Ifhe  2-  to  4-Hz  EEG 
activity  prominent  in  the  lucid  dream  sample  (B)  is  highly  characteristic  of  REM  sleep. 
(Calibrations:  50  mV;  1   sec.) 
Discussion 
How  do  we  know  that  the  subjects  were  "really  asleep’  when  they  com- 
municated the  signals?  If  we  allow  perception  of  the  external  world  as  a 
Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  :   CIA-RDP96-00789R< 03100140001-2
Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  :   CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 
LUCID  DREAMING  73! 
criterion  of  being  awake,  we  can  conclude  the  subjects  were  indeed  asleep: 
Although  they  knew  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,  e.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  feasibility  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 
and  methodical  testing  of  hypotheses. 
REFERENCES 
Antrobus,  J.  S.,  Antrobus,  J.  S.,  &   Fisher,  G   Discrimination  of  dreaming  and  non- 
dreaming sleep.  Archives  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 )   .1  Sleep 
Reviews ,  1978,  166,  30. 
GREEN,  G   Lucid  dreams .  London:  Hamilton,  1968. 
IaBerge^S.  Lucid  dreaming:  some  personal  observations.  Sleep  Research ,  1979,  8, 
I-aBerge,  S,  P.  Induction  of  lucid  dreams.  Sleep  Research ,  1980,  9,  138.  (a) 
LaBerge,  S.  P.  Lucid  dreaming:  an  exploratory  study  of  consciousness  during  sleep. 
Ph.IX  dissertation,  Stanford  Univer.,  1980.  (University  Microfilms  International! 
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.  In  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. 
fixed  terminology , 
'cts.  Washington* 
dona!  Institute  of 
McGuigan  &   R.  A.  Schoonover  (Eds.),  The  psychophysiology  W   thinking .  New 
York:  Academic  Press,  1973.  Pp.  153*200.  1   4 
Rechtscraffbn,  A.,  &   Kales,  A.  (Eds.)  A   manual  of  standard 
techniques  and  scoring  system  for  sleep  stages  of  human  subtec 
D.C:  United  States  Government  Printing  Office,  1968.  ~   r 
Health  Publication  No.  204) 
Sal  AMY,  J.  Instrumental  responding  to  internal  cues  associated  with 
chonomic  Science ,  1970,  18,  342-343. 
Schwartz,  B.  A.,  &   Lbfebvre,  A.  Contacts  veille/P.M.O.  II:  Le* 
Revue  d'EUctroencepbalo  graphic  et  de  Neurophysiologic  Clinit? 
176.  ” 
Tart,  G   S.  From  spontaneous  event  to  lucidity:  a   review  of  attempts  t 
dreaming.  In  B.  B.  Wolman  (Ed.)f  Handbook  of  dreams. 
Nostrand  Reinhold,  1979-  Pp.  226*268. 
VanEeden,  F.  A.  A   study  of  dreams.  Proceedings  of  the  Society  for 
1913,  26,  431-461.  [Reprinted  in  C   T.  Tan  (Ed.),  Altered 
ness.  New  York:  Wiley,  1969.  Pp.  145-158] 
t6 
Psychical  Research , 
states  of  conscious - 
REM  sleep.  Psy - 
P.M.O.  morcelees. 
1973.  3.  165- 
control  nocturnal 
New  York:  Van 
Accepted  April  7,  1981. 
Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  :   CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  : 
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 
A   
p ^ro\/e3r^oSr 1 
 0 0/0 8/0 8  : 
IA-RDP9j^0078J9,R^l3;l!p0140001-2 
Spring  and  Siiimiwr  I'Wi.  Volume  7.  Number*  2  and  ? 
Pj*r«  2S1  1 12  l|  2S8  |12H| 
Lucid  Dreaming:  Physiological  Correlates 
of  Consciousness  during  REM  Sleep 
Stephen  LaBerge 
Stanford  University  and  The  Saybrook  Institute 
Lynne  Levitan  and  William  C.  Dement 
Stan/ord  University 
Reports  of  lucid  dreaming  (dreaming  while  being  conscious  that  one  is  dreaming)  were 
verified  for  1 1  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  thank  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. 
-RDP96-00789R0031 00140001  -2
252  [i22]  LaBERGE/LEV%p/rove(iJfor  Release  2000/08/08  :   CIA-RDP96-0078®0^W^&F001-2 
OF  LUCID  DREAMING 
253  [123]  . 
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  abib 
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  IEEGJ,  electrooculogram  [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, 
left,  right).  In  some  cases,  subjects^^  to  carry 
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 
(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 
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  dichotomouslv  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  the  remaining  21  (28%)  as  WILDs.  For  all  13  subjects,  DlLDs 
were  more  common  than  WILDs  (binomial  test,  p<-0001).  Compared  to 
DILDs,  WILDs  were  more  frequently  immediately  preceded  by  physiological 
indications  of  arousal  (*2  =   38.3,  ldf,  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  (C3-A2L  left  and  right  eye-movements  [LOC  and  ROCJ,  and  chin 
muscle  tone  IEMG])  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  ILOC  and  ROC),  chin  muscle 
tone  [EMG],  and  electrocardiogram  [EGG])  for  a   typical  WILD.  The  subject 
awoke  at  1   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  iucid 
Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  :   CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
254  (124] 
LaBERGE^^^Y^^8TN^e,ease  2000/08/08  :   CIA-RDP96-00789R00310ai400Q1h2c  iD  dreaming 
255  [125] 
Figure  1:  A   typical  dream-initated  lucid  dream  {DILD).  [Calibrations  are  SOpV  and  5  seconds  ! 
t3 
t4 
LOC  V, 
Roc^jf^ — * — 
„   
V   ■  A 
 ; 
V'i  I  k*  V 
 VW. 
>v-w  ^ 
i  1 
EMG 
EGG  i  44.  i  U   WUUUilAuuiUw.UUUU.*  *>*»♦>>*.  a+mu.+i  i 
Figure  2:  A   typical  lucid  dream  initiated  from  a   transient  awakening  during  REM  (WILD). 
[Calibrations  are  50  jiV  and  5  seconds.]  ,  _   _   . 
Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08 
Table  1 
Comparisons  of  Physiological  Variables  for  Lucid  and  Nonducid  Epochs 
Variables  are  averaged  ot-er  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(  1 2)  =   4.36;  K-0001) 
EMLND  >   0 
|r(l  2)  =   3.93;  |<.002J 
Respiration  Rate  (RR) 
RRL >   RRN 
[t(7)  =   4.07;  ftC.OCHI 
RRLND >   0 
[t<7)=4.49;  pC-0041 
Heart  Rate  (HR) 
HRL >   HRN 
|t(8)=2.54;  pC025| 
HRLND >   0 
|t(8)=2.91;  {<-011 
Skin  Potential  (SP) 
SPL  >   SPN 
(t(8)  =   3.00;  fK.01) 
SPLND  > 
[t(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  6f  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,  fK-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 
CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
256(126) 
LaBERGE/LEVIT  AN/DEMENT 
PHYSIOLOGY  OF  LUCID  DREAMING 
257)1271 
Figure  3: 
Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  :   CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 
-5  0   -4  0  -3  0  -2  0   -1  0   0   0   1   0  2  0   3  0   4   0  5   0 
Histograms  of  mean  Z-scores  for  EM,  RR,  HR,  and  SP.  Bins  are  30  seconds  in  lengt 
with  t  =   0  representing  the  signaled  onset  of  lucidity.  Ns  vary  with  variable  and  bii 
but  all  values  are  averaged  across  lucid  dreams  and  subjects.  (*f><.05) 
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,  fK.Ol).  In  a   regression  of  LDPROB 
on  EM  and  REMLEN,  both  variables  entered  significantly,  giving  an  adjusted 
multiple  R  =   .98  (p<.005). 
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 
symbolic  functions  are  *  ndoubtedly  crucial  for  lucid  dreaming,  Cohens  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,  fK.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 
The  Psychophysiology  of  Lucid 
Dreaming 
STEPHEN  LaBERGE 
Edited  by 
LUCID  DREAMING  PHYSIOLOGICALLY  VERIFIED 
Jayne  Gackenbach 
University  of  Northern  Iowa 
Cedar  Fails,  Iowa 
and 
Stephen  LaBerge 
Stanford  University 
Stanford,  California 
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  “meaningless.”  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) 
Plenum  Press 
The  point  of  this  example  is  to  show  the  skeptical  light  in  which  accounts  of 
ucid  dreaming  were  viewed  before  physiological  proof  of  the  reality  of  the 
STEPHEN  LaBERGE  *   Department  of  Psychology,  Stanford  University,  Stanford,  CA  94305. 
New  York  and  London 
Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  :   CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
136  STEPHEN  Uberge 
■ 
 .  .  ..  ..  .Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08 
phenomenon  made  philosophical  arguments  moot.  As  for  the  occasional  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  or 
NREM  sleep.  Most  sleep  researchers  were  apparently  inclined  to  accept 
Hartmann’s  “impression”  that  lucid  dreams  were  “not  typical  parts  of  dreaming 
thought,  but  rather  brief  arousals”  (Hartmann,  1975,  p.  74;  cf.  Berger,  1977) 
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  ( 1 965)  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 
Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  : 
pSYCHOm  t  3MLuu  i  ui  LUG.iiv 
of  the  34  nights  of  the  study,  35 
iucid  dreams  were  reported  subsequent  to  spontaneous  awaking  from  various 
taaes  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, 
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;  Heame,  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,  1   was  “ambiguous”  REM  and  the  other  appeared  to  be 
wakefulness.  Keith  Heame  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 
IA-RDP96-00789R0031 00140001  -2