Search

The original conceptualization of REM sleep as paradoxical sleep was based on its EEG resembling wakefulness and its association with dreaming. Over time, the concept of paradox was expanded to include various associations with REM sleep, such as dream exclusivity, high recall, and pathophysiology. However, none of these associations are unique to REM sleep; they can also occur in other sleep states. Today, after more than fifty years of focused research, two aspects of REMS clearly retain paradoxical exclusivity. Despite the persistent contention that the EEG of human REMS consists of wake-like, low-voltage, non-synchronous electrical discharges, REMS is based on and defined by the intracranial electrical presence of 5–8 Hz. theta, which has always been the marker of REMS in other animals. The wake-like EEG used to define REMS on human polysomnography is secondary to a generalized absence of electrophysiological waveforms because the strong waves of intracranial theta do not propagate to scalp electrodes placed outside the skull. It is a persistent paradox that the theta frequency is restricted to a cyclical intracranial dynamic that does not extend beyond the lining of the brain. REMS has a persistent association with narratively long and salient dream reports. However, the extension of this finding to equate REMS with dreaming led to a foundational error in neuroscientific logic. Major theories and clinical approaches were built upon this belief despite clear evidence that dreaming is reported throughout sleep in definingly different physiologic and phenomenological forms. Few studies have addressed the differences between the dreams reported from the different stages of sleep so that today, the most paradoxical aspect of REMS dreaming may be how little the state has actually been studied. An assessment of the differences in dreaming between sleep stages could provide valuable insights into how dreaming relates to the underlying brain activity and physiological processes occurring during each stage. The brain waves and dreams of REMS persist as being paradoxically unique and different from waking and the other states of sleep consciousness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lucid dreaming (LD) is a physiological state of consciousness that occurs when dreamers become aware that they are dreaming, and may also control the oneiric content. In the general population, LD is spontaneously rare; thus, there is great interest in its induction. Here, we aim to review the literature on neuropsychopharmacological induction of LD. First, we describe the circadian and homeostatic processes of sleep regulation and the mechanisms that control REM sleep with a focus on neurotransmission systems. We then discuss the neurophysiology and phenomenology of LD to understand the main cortical oscillations and brain areas involved in the emergence of lucidity during REM sleep. Finally, we review possible exogenous substances—including natural plants and artificial drugs—that increase metacognition, REM sleep, and/or dream recall, thus with the potential to induce LD. We found that the main candidates are substances that increase cholinergic and/or dopaminergic transmission, such as galantamine. However, the main limitation of this technique is the complexity of these neurotransmitter systems, which challenges interpreting results in a simple way. We conclude that, despite these promising substances, more research is necessary to find a reliable way to pharmacologically induce LD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lucid dreaming (LD) is a physiological state of consciousness that occurs when dreamers become aware that they are dreaming, and may also control the oneiric content. In the general population, LD is spontaneously rare; thus, there is great interest in its induction. Here, we aim to review the literature on neuropsychopharmacological induction of LD. First, we describe the circadian and homeostatic processes of sleep regulation and the mechanisms that control REM sleep with a focus on neurotransmission systems. We then discuss the neurophysiology and phenomenology of LD to understand the main cortical oscillations and brain areas involved in the emergence of lucidity during REM sleep. Finally, we review possible exogenous substances—including natural plants and artificial drugs—that increase metacognition, REM sleep, and/or dream recall, thus with the potential to induce LD. We found that the main candidates are substances that increase cholinergic and/or dopaminergic transmission, such as galantamine. However, the main limitation of this technique is the complexity of these neurotransmitter systems, which challenges interpreting results in a simple way. We conclude that, despite these promising substances, more research is necessary to find a reliable way to pharmacologically induce LD.

Background: In a world filled with technology, there's concern about the impact of screen time on children and teenagers. A recent study of 11,875 children aged nine to 10 in the US explored how screen time affects mental health, behaviour, school performance, sleep, and friendships. The results indicate that more screen time is mildly linked to worse mental health, more behaviour problems, lower academic performance, and poorer sleep, but slightly better peer relationships. However, these connections were weak, with socioeconomic status (SES) having a stronger influence on these outcomes. The study doesn't prove that screen time causes these issues, suggesting that increased screen time might not be directly harmful to children in this age group. The research adds to the understanding of how screen time impacts children's well-being and highlights the importance of promoting healthy habits. Our study aims to add to this literature by examining how screen time impacts sleep quality, dream recall, and academic performance in school-aged children. Understanding the potential consequences of screen time is crucial for promoting healthy habits and ensuring the overall well-being of children. Our research seeks to provide further insights into the relationship between screen time and key aspects of children's lives as its prevalence continues to rise., Methods: The research incorporates a cohort of 1000 school-aged children, bifurcated evenly into two categories based on their daily screen exposure: a low screen time group (less than one hour daily, n = 500) and a high screen time group (over three hours daily, n = 500). The study probes into the correlation between screen time and various health parameters, such as sleep patterns, dream recall, and academic prowess., Results: The analysis showed that children with low screen time had better sleep efficiency (90% vs. 75%), more frequent dream recall (70% vs. 30%), fewer nocturnal awakenings (0.5 vs. 1.5 times weekly), less daytime sleepiness (20% vs. 60%), and higher physical activity levels (60 vs. 30 minutes per day) compared to those with high screen time. They also had less weekend sleep variability (1.2 hours) and a lower risk of circadian rhythm disturbances (20% increased risk in the high screen time group). Additionally, a screen-free bedroom was more common in the low screen time group (85% vs. 30%), and parental involvement in sleep routines was higher (90% vs. 40%). Academically, the low screen time group achieved higher grades ('A' to 'A+' vs. 'B'), and they had more face-to-face social interactions (two vs. one hour per day)., Conclusion: Escalating screen time is correlated with detrimental impacts on sleep efficiency, dream recall, physical activity, circadian rhythms, and academic performance in school-aged children. Fostering a screen-free bedroom environment and augmenting parental involvement in sleep routines may alleviate these adverse effects., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, G et al.)