Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Incorporation of concern- and nonconcern-related verbal stimuli into dream content.

1981; American Psychological Association; Volume: 90; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1037/0021-843x.90.1.88

1939-1846

Timothy J. Hoelscher, Eric Klinger, Steven G. Barta,

Memory and Neural Mechanisms

The hypothesis that cues related to subjects' current concerns can control attentional and cognitive processes during sleeping and dreaming was examined by presenting concern- and nonconcern-related verbal stimuli to seven male subjects during sleep Stages 2 and REM. The taped dream reports were judged for stimulus incorporation by two independent raters. The results revealed that concern stimuli were incorporated significantly more often than nonconcern stimuli in Stage REM, although low dream recall rates prevented assessment of whether this relationship also existed in Stage 2. This rinding supports the results of a number of other studies which indicate that responsiveness to auditory stimuli during sleeping and dreaming is largely dependent on the personal significance of the stimulus to the sleeper. It further suggests that sleeping subjects are capable of making more complex and subtle cognitive discriminations, based on the waking value of the stimulus to the subject, than has previously been demonstrated. Research on the determinants of waking thought content (Klinger, 1978) has demonstrated the influence of current concerns on cognitive processes. The concept of current concern refers to the state of an organism between the time it becomes committed to a particular goal and the consummation or abandonment of the goal. During dichotic listening, cues related to subjects' current concerns exerted a controlling effect on attention, recall, and thought content. The present investigation seeks to extend these findings to effects of concernrelated cues on dream content. Responsiveness to external stimulation has been shown to occur in sleeping subjects. Subjects can be induced to perform physical acts in response to cues introduced while they are asleep (Evans, Gustafson, O'Connell, Orne, & Shor, 1970; Oswald, Taylor, & Treisman, 1960; Williams, Morlock, & Morlock, 1966). Both the cues and the responses used in these investigations varied considerably: stereotyped hand movements to taperecorded names (Oswald et al., 1960), overlearned natural responses to suggestions about subjects' physical states, such as scratching one's nose in response to the suggestion that it was itchy (Evans et al., 1970), or finger movements in response to conditioned auditory stimuli (Williams et al., 1966). These studies make clear that sleeping sub