CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2

TedpipnovadcFor Release 2000/08/08ATGIA-RDP96-00789R00310014000/1-2
-
Anomalous Cognition
in
Lucid Dreams
Prepared by:
Edwin C. May, Ph.D. and S. LaBerge
20 December 1991
SAIC
R
Science Applications International Corporation
An Employee-Owned Company
Presented to:
The Scientific Oversight Committee
Submitted by:
Science Applications International Corporation
Cognitive Sciences Laboratory
1010 El Camino Real, Suite 330
Menlo Park, California 94025
1010 El Camino Real, Suite 330, P.O. Box 1412, Menlo Park, CA 94025 · (415) 325-8292
"Approved For Release 2000/08/08ª: 'CTA RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
UNEDITED DRAFT

DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
OBJECTIVE
1
II
BACKGROUND
2
III
APPROACH
3
1.
Receiver Selection
3
2.
Target Selection
3
3.
Trial Definition
3
4.
Lucid Dream Protocol
3
3
6.
Lucid Dream Trial Protocol
4
7.
Analysis
4
IV
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
5
V
GLOSSARY
6
REFERENCES
7
APPENDIX
8
Approved For Release 2000/08/08".
UNEDITED CA-UP96-00789R003100140001-2
5.
AC Baseline Measures

TeAmpara vedotar Releases 2009/08/98 HEJARDP96-00789R003100140001-2
DRAFT
I. OBJECTIVE
The objective of this investigation is to determine if anomalous cognition can be ovserved during a lucid
dream .*
* Definitions of terms can be found in Section V (i.c., Glossary) on page 6.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
ONEDITED DRAFT
1

TecAmenovadPARAlense 22000/08/08ucGlø-DP96-00789R003100140001-2
DRAFT
II. BACKGROUND
Dreams involving putative anomalous cognition (AC) have been part of every human culture from the
times of ancient Greece to the present. The first serious attempt, however, to examine AC in dreams
under controlled conditions began under the direction of Montague Ullman, MD in 1962 at the Com-
munity Mental Health Center of the Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York. The re-
search of AC in dreams continued until 1972 where the dream protocol was abandoned in favor of a
simpler and more rapid approach to the study of AC. Child has summarized and critiqued this body of
research in the American Psychologist.1*
In these studies, individuals were asked to sleep in a laboratory and be monitored for brain activity and
eye movement. From these records, it was possible to tell when they were dreaming. Upon the onset of
rapid eye movement (REM), an experimenter notified a sender, who was isolated in a remote laborato-
ry, to begin attending to a randomly selected target. At the end of the REM period, the dreamer was
awakened and asked to report the dream content. This procedure was repeated throughout the night
using the same target material for each separate dream (e.g., up to ten). The assessment of the AC
content was accomplished through independent judges. As described by Child, significant evidence for
AC was observed under a variety of conditions.
The dreamers in these studies, however, were not necessarily focused upon the AC task. They slept as
usual and, when asked, reported their dream content. In our pilot study we will focus the dreamer ex-
plicitly on the AC task using the methods of lucid dreaming.
A lucid dream is one during which the sleeper becomes conscious aware that the experience is a dream
as opposed to the waking state. LaBerge et al. (1981) have found that it is possible for dreamers to know
when they dreaming and to signal the waking world, through predetermined eye movements, indicating
their awareness.2 Using this ability, LaBerge et al. (1986 and 1988) conducted a number of psychophy-
siological studies to determine the differences between waking and dreaming from that prospective.3,4
They found that dreaming is similar to the waking state. Motor action is mostly inhibited from the brain
stem downward; however, the cerebral cortex appears not to "know" this.
In this preliminary pilot study, we will use the skills developed by LaBerge to teach individuals to lucid
dream. Differing from the earlier AC dream studies, our dreamers will be instructed to adopt a proac-
tive attitude to seek out and remember the AC target. In this way, we will determine the degree to which
lucid dreaming can facilitate the reception of AC material.
* References may be found at the end of the document and are included in their entirety in the Appendix.
Approved For Release 200
UNEDITED ORAST
P96-00789R003100140001-2

DRAFT
III. APPROACH
1. Receiver Selection
We will use two specialize populations from which to draw receivers for this pilot experiment:
(1) Experienced dreamers from LaBerg's research subjects , and
(2) Receivers who have demonstrated significant ability in other AC studies.
Currently, five and seven individuals have volunteered, respectively.
2. Target Selection
Targets will be chosen randomly from the standard set of 100 National Geographic magazine photographs.
3. Trial Definition
A trial is defined as a successful lucid dream during which the target material was examined and later
transcribed in the waking state.
4. Lucid Dream Protocol
All receivers will undertake two forms of training in lucid dreaming: (1) They will complete a lucid
dreaming home-study course developed by the Lucidity Institute (i.e., a subcontractor to SAIC), and
(2) they will attend two weekend seminars, one at the beginning and one at the end of the proposed
three-month pilot study. The first seminar, which was held in December, 1991, introduced receivers to
lucid dreaming skills and the the use of the DreamLight, a lucid dream induction device. In previous
studies, the DreamLight has been shown to enhance the frequency of lucid dreaming. The DreamLight
consists of a sleep mask equipped with lights and eye movement sensors, which are attached to a small
battery-operated computer. When the computer detects the eye movements of dreaming (i.e., REM)
sleep, it causes the lights in the mask to flash briefly (i.e., either one or two flashes per second). The
dreamer frequently incorporates the flashes into the ongoing dream, and thus experiences a cue to indi-
cate that he or she is dreaming. Receivers will have free access to DreamLights during the duration of
the study.
5. AC Baseline Measures
Each receiver will be asked to contribute eight trials in a waking state in the Cognitive Sciences Labora-
tory as an AC baseline series. The targets for this series will be chosen at random from a standardized
target set that was developed from an earlier program. Each trial will be conducted as follows: After the
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
UNEDITED DRAFT

Techopro WebEdr/Releases 2000/08/08/ABR96-00789003100140001-2
DRAFT
III. APPROACH
1. Receiver Selection
We will use two specialize populations from which to draw receivers for this pilot experiment:
(1) Experienced dreamers from LaBerg's research subjects , and
(2) Receivers who have demonstrated significant ability in other AC studies.
Currently, five and seven individuals have volunteered, respectively.
2. Target Selection
Targets will be chosen randomly from the standard set of 100 National Geographic magazine photographs.
3. Trial Definition
A trial is defined as a successful lucid dream during which the target material was examined and later
transcribed in the waking state.
4. Lucid Dream Protocol
All receivers will undertake two forms of training in lucid dreaming: (1) They will complete a lucid
dreaming home-study course developed by the Lucidity Institute (i.e., a subcontractor to SAIC), and
(2) they will attend two weekend seminars, one at the beginning and one at the end of the proposed
three-month pilot study. The first seminar, which was held in December, 1991, introduced receivers to
lucid dreaming skills and the the use of the DreamLight, a lucid dream induction device. In previous
studies, the DreamLight has been shown to enhance the frequency of lucid dreaming. The DreamLight
consists of a sleep mask equipped with lights and eye movement sensors, which are attached to a small
battery-operated computer. When the computer detects the eye movements of dreaming (i.e., REM)
sleep, it causes the lights in the mask to flash briefly (i.e., either one or two flashes per second). The
dreamer frequently incorporates the flashes into the ongoing dream, and thus experiences a cue to indi-
cate that he or she is dreaming. Receivers will have free access to DreamLights during the duration of
the study.
5. AC Baseline Measures
Each receiver will be asked to contribute eight trials in a waking state in the Cognitive Sciences Labora-
tory as an AC baseline series. The targets for this series will be chosen at random from a standardized
target set that was developed from an earlier program. Each trial will be conducted as follows: After the
Approved For Release 20
EDITED DRAFT
8 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
3

TeAlpord Feetdor Releases 2000/08/08 :16LARDIR96-00789R003100140001-2
DRAFT
receiver and an experimenter (i.e., called a monitor) enter the AC laboratory (i.e., an office with a single
desk and two chairs), an assistant will use a computer random number generator to select a target from
the baseline target pool. Both the receiver and the monitor will be blind to this specific choice. At a
pre-arranged time, the monitor will encourage the receiver to draw and write impressions of the target
material, which is located approximately 50 meters away. After approximately 15 minutes of casual
questioning, the trial will end; the data will be copied; the originals will be secured; and the actual target
will be presented as feedback to the receiver. The analysis will be discussed below.
6. Lucid Dream Trial Protocol
During the study, each receiver will attempt to provide six AC trials in a lucid dream state according to
the following procedure:
(1) Each receiver will receive a sealed opaque envelope containing a target photograph chosen ran-
domly from a predetermined set of 100. Receivers will place the target envelope in the room in
which they are sleeping.
(2) Using the DreamLight, they will attempt, while dreaming, to open the envelope, memorize its con-
tent, and awaken as soon as possible.
(3) In the waking state, they will write and draw their impressions in detail.
(4) During the next day, they will mail the unopened envelope and their response to the principal in-
vestigator (PI) for analysis. Upon receipt, the PI will send back a copy of the target photograph as
feedback and an additional sealed envelope for the next trial. This procedure will be repeated
until six trials are obtained from each receiver.
7. Analysis
Traditional rank-ordering will be the method of analysis. The set of 100 National Geographic magazine
photographs have been divided into 20 packets of five targets each. Within each pack, the targets have
been selected to be as visually different from one another as possible. (A series of fuzzy sets were used
to provide a quantitative method that was "fine tuned" by human judgment.) When a target is chosen
from one of the target packs, the remaining four targets are considered as "decoy" targets for an analyst.
For each trial, an analyst, is given the AC response and the target pack (i.e., five targets) from which the
actual target was chosen. The analyst is required to rank order the targets from best to least match to
the given response, regardless of the quality of the matches. The rank that is assigned to the intended
target represents the value of the dependent variable for the trial. A sum-of-ranks is then computed for
all the trials for each receiver, and effect sizes and p-values are determined from the known sum-of-
ranks distribution.
The effect sizes from the lucid dreaming trials will be compared to each receiver's base line data and to
historical AC data that is available for the experienced receivers.
Approved For Release, 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
UNEDITED DRAFT
4

TeAppra estdcor Releases2000/08/08 :GIARDP96-00789R003100140001-2
DRAFT
IV. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The primary purpose of this pilot study is to determine if AC is possible in the lucid dream state. Be-
cause the trials will be conduced in each receiver's home and is unsupervised, it is possible that the tar-
get material can be compromised. By using standard enclosure techniques it is possible to determine if
any casual attempt has been made to physically open the target material, but an experienced magician
could foil the detection precautions. Thus we will be unable to conclude the existence of AC in a formal
sense in this experiment.
Knowing the historical effect sizes from other AC studies and from the calibrations of the lucid dreamer
population can provide circumstantial evidence of AC. If the the lucid dreaming effect sizes are not
significantly smaller than the historical or base line effect sizes, then we will recommend that a careful,
laboratory-based study be conducted.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
UNEDITED DRAFT
5

TextpispbRes For/Release 2090/08/08 udd A.R.D.P96-00789R003100140001-2
DRAFT
V. GLOSSARY
Not all the terms defined below are germane to the this study, but they are included here for complete-
ness. In a typical anomalous mental phenomena (AMP) task, we define:
· Anomalous Cognition (AC)-A form of information transfer in which all known sensorial stimuli are
absent. That is, some individuals are able to gain access, by an as yet unknown process, to information
that is not available to the known sensorial channels.
· Receiver-An individual who attempts to perceive and report information about a target.
· Agent-An individual who attempts to influence a target system.
· Target-An item that is the focus of an AMP task (e.g., person, place, thing, event).
. Target Designation-A method by which a specific target, against the backdrop of all other possible
targets, is identified to the receiver (e.g., geographical coordinates).
· Sender/Beacon-An individual who, while receiving direct sensorial stimuli from an intended target,
acts as a putative transmitter to the receiver.
· Monitor-An individual who monitors an AC session to facilitate data collection.
· Session-A time period during which AC data is collected.
· Protocol-A template for conducting a structured data collection session.
· Response-Material that is produced during an AC session in response to the intended target.
· Feedback-After a response has been secured, information about the intended target is displayed to
the receiver.
· Analyst-An individual who provides a quantitative measure of AC.
· Specialty-A given receiver's ability to be particularly successful with a given class of targets (e.g.,
people as opposed to buildings).
. Lucid Dream-A dream during which an individual becomes aware of the dream.
Approved For ReleaseNEDITEDI
2000/08/08 - CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
6

TeAlproro PeroFor Release: 2090/08/08LL &JABAR96-00789R003100140001-2
DRAFT
REFERENCES
1. Irvin L. Child, "Psychology and Anomalous Observations," American Psychologist, Vol. 40., No.
11, pp. 1219-1230 (November 1985).
2. S. LaBerge, L. E. Nagel, W. C. Dement, and V. P. Zarcone, Jr., "Lucid Dreaming Verified by
Volitional Communication During REM Sleep," Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 52, pp. 727-732
(1981).
3. S. LaBerge, L. Levitan, and W. C. Dement, "Lucid Dreaming: Physiological Correlates of
Consciousness during REM Sleep," The Journal of Mind and Behavior, Vol. 7, Nos. 2 and 3,
pp.251-258 (1986).
4. The Psychophysiology of Lucid Dreaming, Ed. J. Gackenbach and S. LaBerge, pp. 135-153, Plenum
Press, New York (1988).
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
NEDITED DRAFT

TecApprovedcon Release 2000108102 cGlA RAP96-00789R003100140001-2
DRAFT
APPENDIX
This appendix contains the full reprints of the following three papers:
(1) "Psychology and Anomalous Observations"
(2) "Lucid Dreaming Verified by Volitional Communication During REM Sleep"
(3) "Lucid Dreaming: Physiological Correlates of Consciousness during REM Sleep"
(4) The Psychophysiology of Lucid Dreaming, pp. 135-153
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
UNEDITED DRAFT

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
Psychology and Anomalous Observations
The Question of ESP in Dreams
Irvin L. Child Yale University
ABSTRACT: Books by psychologists purporting to of- regardless of whether it leads to an understanding of
fer critical reviews of research in parapsychology do
not use the scientific standards of discourse prevalent
in psychology. Experiments at Maimonides Medical
Center on possible extrasensory perception (ESP) in
dreams are used to illustrate this point. The experi-
ments have received little or no mention in some re-
views to which they are clearly pertinent. In others,
they have been so severely distorted as to give an en-
tirely erroneous impression of how they were con-
ducted. Insofar as psychologists are guided by these
reviews, they are prevented from gaining accurate in-
formation about research that, as surveys show, would
be of wide interest to psychologists as well as to others.
In recent years, evidence has been accumulating for
the occurrence of such anomalies as telepathy and
psychokinesis, but the evidence is not totally con-
vincing. The evidence has come largely from experi-
ments by psychologists who have devoted their careers
mainly to studying these anomalies, but members of
other disciplines, including engineering and physics,
have also taken part. Some psychologists not primarily
concerned with parapsychology have taken time out
from other professional concerns to explore such
anomalies for themselves. Of these, some have joined
in the experimentation (e.g., Crandall & Hite, 1983;
Lowry, 1981; Radin, 1982). Some have critically re-
viewed portions of the evidence (e.g., Akers, 1984;
Hyman, 1985). Some, doubting that the phenomena
could be real, have explored ponrational processes
that might encourage belief in their reality (e.g., Ay-
eroff & Abelson, 1976). Still others, considering the
evidence substantial enough to justify a constructive
theoretical effort, have struggled to relate the apparent
anomalies to better established knowledge in a way
that will render them less anomalous (e.g., Irwin,
1979) or not anomalous at all (e.g., Blackmore, 1984).
These psychologists differ widely in their surmise
about whether the apparent anomalies in question will
eventually be judged real or illusory; but they appear
to agree that the evidence to date warrants serious
consideration.
new discoveries or to an understanding of how per-
suasive illusions arise. Apparent anomalies-just like
the more numerous observations that are not anom-
alous-can receive appropriate attention only as they
become accurately known to the scientists to whose
work they are relevant. Much parapsychological re-
search is barred from being seriously considered be-
cause it is either neglected or misrepresented in writ-
ings by some psychologists-among them, some who
have placed themselves in a prime position to mediate
interaction between parapsychological research and
the general body of psychological knowledge. In this
article, I illustrate this important general point with
a particular case, that of experimental research on
possible ESP in dreams. It is a case of especially great
interest but is not unrepresentative of how psycho-
logical publications have treated similar anomalies.
The Maimonides Research
The experimental evidence suggesting that dreams
may actually be influenced by ESP comes almost en-
tirely from a research program carried out at the
Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York.
Among scientists active in parapsychology, this pro-
gram is widely known and greatly respected. It has
had a major indirect influence on the recent course
of parapsychological research, although the great ex-
pense of dream-laboratory work has prevented it from
being a direct model.
None of the Maimonides research was published
in the journals that are the conventional media for
psychology. (The only possible exception is that a
summary of one study [Honorton, Krippner, & Ull-
man, 1972] appeared in convention proceedings of
the American Psychological Association.) Much of it
was published in the specialized journals of parapsy-
chology. The rest was published in psychiatric or other
medical journals, where it would not be noticed by
many psychologists. Most of it was summarized in
popularized form in a book (Ullman, Krippner, &
Vaughan, 1973) in which two of the researchers were
joined by a popular writer whose own writings are
clearly not in the scientific tradition, and the book
departs from the pattern of scientific reporting that
-
-
Serious consideration of apparent anomalies
seems an essential part of the procedures of science, characterizes the original research reports.
1219
November 1985 . American Psychologist
Copyright 1995 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0001-066X/25/200.75
VGL 40. No. 11. 1219-1230
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
..
How, then, would this research come to the at-
tention of psychologists, so that its findings or its errors
might in time be evaluated for their significance to
the body of systematic observations upon which psy-
chology has been and will be built? The experiments
at Maimonides were published between about 1966
and 1972. In the years since-now over a decade-
five books have been published by academic psy-
chologists that purport to offer a scholarly review and
evaluation of parapsychological research. They vary
in the extent to which they seem addressed to psy-
chologists themselves or to their students, but they
seem to be the principal route by which either present
or future psychologists, unless they have an already
established interest strong enough to lead them to
search out the original publications, might become
acquainted with the experiments on ESP in dreams.
I propose to review how these five books have pre-
sented knowledge about the experiments. First, how-
ever, I must offer a summary of the experiments;
without that, my review would make sense only to
readers already well acquainted with them.
The experiments at Maimonides grew out of
Montague UUman's observations, in his psychiatric
practice, of apparent telepathy underlying the content .
of some dreams reported by his patients-observa-
tions parallel to those reported by many other psy-
chiatrists. He sought to determine whether this ap-
parent phenomenon would appear in a sleep labora-
tory under controlled conditions that would seem to
exclude interpretations other than that of ESP. He
was joined in this research by psychologist Stanley
Krippner, now at the Saybrook Institute in San Fran-
cisco, and a little later by Charles Honorton, now head
of the Psychophysical Research Laboratories in
Princeton, New Jersey. Encouraged by early findings
but seeking to improve experimental controls and
identify optimal conditions, these researchers, assisted
by numerous helpers and consultants, tried out var-
ious modifications of procedure. No one simple de-
scription of procedure, therefore, can be accurate for
all of the experiments. But the brief description that
follows is not, I believe, misleading as an account of
what was generally done.
The Experimental Procedure
A subject would come to the laboratory to spend the
night there as would-be percipient in a study of pos-
sible telepathic influence on dreams. He or she met
and talked with the person who was going to serve as
agent (that is, the person who would try to send a
telepathic message), as well as with the two experi-
menters taking part that night, and procedures were
explained in detail unless the percipient was a repeater
for whom that step was not necessary. When ready
to go to bed, the percipient was wired up in the usual
way for monitoring of brain waves and eye move-
ments, and he or she had no further contact with the
agent or agent's experimenter until after the session
was completed. The experimenter in the next room
monitored the percipient's sleep and at the beginning
of each period of rapid eye movements (REM), when
it was reasonably certain the sleeper would be dream-
ing, notified the agent by pressing a buzzer.
The agent was in a remote room in the building,
provided with a target picture (and sometimes acces-
sory material echoing the theme of the picture) ran-
domly chosen from a pool of potential targets as the
message to be concentrated on. The procedure for
random choice of a target from the pool was designed
to prevent anyone else from knowing the identity of
the target. The agent did not open the packet con-
taining the target until isolated for the night (except
for the one-way buzzer communication). Whenever
signaled that the percipjent had entered a REM pe-
riod, the agent was to concentrate on the target, with
the aim of communicating it telepathically to the per-
cipient and thus influencing the dream the percipient
was having. The percipient was oriented toward trying
to receive this message. But of course if clairvoyance
and telepathy are both possible, the percipient might '
have used the former-that is, might have been pick-
ing up information directly from the target picture,
without the mediation of the agent's thoughts or ef-
forts. For this reason, the term general extrasensor
perception (GESP) would be used today, though the
researchers more often used the term telepathy.
Toward the approximate end of each REM pe-
riod, the percipient was awakened (by intercom) by
the monitoring experimenter and described any
dream just experienced (with prodding and question-
ing, if necessary, though the percipient of course knew
in advance what to do on each awakening). At the
end of the night's sleep, the percipient was interviewed
and was asked for impressions about what the target
might have been. (The interview was of course double-
blind; neither percipient nor interviewer knew the
identity of the target.) The dream descriptions and
morning impressions and associations were recorded
and later transcribed.
The original research reports and the popular
book both present a number of very striking similar-
ities between passages in the dream transcripts and
the picture that happened to be the night's target.
These similarities merit attention, yet they should in
themselves yield no sense of conviction. Perhaps any
transcript of a night's dreaming contains passages of
striking similarity to any picture to which they might
be compared. The Maimonides research, however,
consisted of carefully planned experiments designed
Requests for reprints should be sent to Irvin L. Child at the De-
partment of Psychology, Yale University, P.O. Box 11A, New Haven,
Connecticut 06520-7447.
1220
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R603100140001+2logist

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
to permit evaluation of this hypothesis of random
similarity, and I must now turn to that aspect.
Results
To evaluate the chance hypothesis, the researchers
obtained judgments of similarity between the dream
content and the actual target for the night, and at the
same time obtained judgments of similarity between
the dream content and each of the other potential
targets in the pool from which the target had been
selected at random. The person judging, of course,
had no information about which picture had been
randomly selected as target; the entire pool (in du-
plicate) was presented together, with no clue as to
which picture had been the target and which ones had
not. That is, in the experimental condition a picture
was randomly selected from a pool and concentrated
on by the agent, and in the control condition a picture
was left behind in the pool. Any consistent difference
between target and nontarget in similarity to dream
content, exceeding what could reasonably be.ascribed
to chance, was considered an apparent anomaly.
The data available for the largest number of ses-
sions came from judgments made by judges who had
no contact with the experiment except to receive (by
mail, generally) the material necessary for judging
(transcripts of dreams and interview and a copy of
the target pool). For many sessions, judgments were
also available from the dreamer, he or she, of course,
made judgments only after completing participation
in the experiment as dreamer (except in some series
where a separate target pool was used for each night
and the dreamer's judgments could be made at the
end of the session). For many sessions, judgments were
made for the dream transcripts alone and for the total
transcript including the morning interview; for con-
sistency I have used the latter, because it involved
judges who had more nearly the same information as
the subjects.
The only form in which the data are available
for all series of sessions is a count of hits and misses.
If the actual target was ranked in the upper half of
the target pool, for similarity to the dreams and in-
terview, the outcome was considered a hit. If the actual
target was ranked in the lower half of the pool, the
outcome was considered a miss. The hit-or-miss score
is presented separately in Table 1 for judges and for
subjects in the first two data columns. Where infor-
mation is not supplied for one or the other, the reason
is generally that it was impossible for the researchers
to obtain it, and for a similar reason the number of
cases sometimes varies.'
.
' Of course, usable judgments could not be obtained from the
subject in precognitive sessions, because at the time of judging he
or she would already know what the target had been. For Line F.
the single subject was unable to give the extra time required for
judging, and for Line O one of the four subjects failed to make
Each data row in Table 1 refers to one segment
of the research, and segments for the most part are
labeled as they were in the table of Ullman et al. (1973,
pp. 275-277). Segments that followed the general
procedure I described-all-night sessions, with an
agent concentrating on the target during each of the
percipient's REM periods-are gathered together in
the first eight lines, A through H (in five of these seg-
ments, all but A, C, and H, a single percipient con-
tinued throughout a series, and in four of these the
percipient was a psychologist). Other types of segments
are presented in the rest of the table. Lines I, J, and
K summarize precognitive sessions; here the target
was not selected until after the dreaming and interview
had been completed. The target consisted of a set of
stimuli to be presented directly to the percipient after
it had been selected in the morning. Lines L and M
represent GESP sessions in which the percipient's
dreams were monitored and recorded throughout the
night, but the agent was attempting to transmit only
before the percipient went to sleep or just after, or
sporadically. Line N refers to a few clairvoyance ses-
sions; these were like the standard GESP sessions ex-
cept that there was no agent (no one knew the identity
of the target). Finally, Line O reports on some GESP
sessions in which cach dream was considered sepa-
rately; these formed a single experiment with four
percipients, comparing nights involving a different
target for each REM period with nights involving re-
peated use of a single target.
Regardless of the type of session (considering the
five types I have described), each session fell into one
of two categories: (a) pilot sessions, in which either a
new dreamer or a new procedure was being tried out;
these appear in lines H, K, and N, or (b) sessions in
an experimental series, planned in advance as one or
more sessions for each of two or more subjects, or as
a number of sessions with the same dreamer through-
out. Most of the researchers' publications were de-
voted to the results obtained in the experimental se-
ries, but the results of the pilot sessions have also been
briefly reported.
A glance at the score columns for judges and for
subjects is sufficient to indicate a strong tendency for
an excess of hits over misses. If we average the outcome
for judges and for subjects, we find that hits exceed
misses on every one of the 15 independent lines on
which outcome for hits and misses differs. (On Line
E. hits and misses occur with equal frequency.) By a
simple sign-test, this outcome would be significant
beyond the 0.0001 level. I would not stress the exact
value here, for several reasons. There was no advance
1
judgments. In a few of the pilot sessions (Lines H, K. and N) only
the subject's judgment was sought, and in some sessions only that
of one or more judges; in a few the mean judges' rating was neither
a hit nor a miss but exactly at the middle.
November 1985 . American Psychologist
1221
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
1

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
Table 1
Summary of Maimonides Results on Tendency for Dreams to Be Judged More Like Target
Than Like Nontargets in Target Pool
Judges'
acor
Subjects'
z or t resulting from judgments
Series
Was
Miss
Judges
Subjects
Sourows
GESP: Dreams monitored and recorded throughout night; agent "transmittingt' during each REM period
A. 1st screening
7
5
10
2
z = 0.71
z = 1.33º
B. 1st Erwin
5
2
6
1
z = 2.53º
z = 1.90°
C. 2nd screening
4
8
9
3
-. 25°
Z = 1.170
D. Posin
6
2
6
2
z = 1.05€
z = 1.05€
E. Grayeb
3
5
5
3
Z = -. 63ª
z = 0.63€
F. 2nd Erwin
8
0
4.93'
G. Van de Castle
6
2
8
0
f = 2.81ª
1 = 2.74ª
Krippner & Ullman
(1970)
Ullman et al. (1973)
Precognition: Dreams monitored and recorded throughout night; target experience next day
1. 1st Bessent
7
1
( = 2.81ª
J. 2nd Bessent
7
1
t = 2.27ª
K. Pilot sessions
2
0
z = 0.67€
Krippner, Ullman, &
Honorton (1971)
Krippner, Honorton, &
Ullman (1972)
Ullman et al. (1973)
GESP: Dreams monitored and recorded throughout night; agent active only at beginning or sporadically
L. Sensory bombard-
ment
8
0
4
4
Z = 3.11b
z = 0.00€
Krippner, Honorton,
Ullman, Masters, &
Houston (1971)
M. Grateful Dead
7
5
8
4
z = 0.61ª
z = 0.81€
Krippner, Honorton, &
Ullman (1973)
Clairvoyance: Dreams monitored and recorded throughout night; concealed target known to no one
N. Pilot sessions
5
3
4
5
z = 0.98ª
z = 0.00
Ullman et al. (1973)
GESP: Single dreams
O. Vaughan, Harris,
Parise
105
98
74
79
Z = 0.63.
Z = -. 32€
Honorton, Krippner, &
Ullman (1972)
Note. GESP - general extrasensory perception. Italics Identify results obtained with procedures that preserve independence of judgments in a sanes.
For some series, the published source does not use the uniform measures entered in this table, and mimeographed laboratory reports were also
consulted. Superacipts indicate which measure was available, in order of porty.
" Ratings. "Rankings. " Score (count of hits and misses).
plan to merge the outcomes for judges and subjects. sonably be ascribed to chance. There is some system-
Moreover, the various series could be split up in other atic-that is, nonrandom --- source of anomalous re-
ways. Although I think my organization of the table semblance of dreams to target.
is very reasonable (and I did not notice this outcome
Despite its breadth, this "hitting" tendency seems
to vary greatly in strength. The data on single
dreams-Line O-suggest no consistency. At the
other extreme, some separate lines of the table look
impressive. I will next consider how we may legiti-
until after the table was constructed), it is not the
organization selected by Ullman et al. (1973); their
table, if evaluated statistically in this same way, would
not yield so striking a result. What is clear is that the
tendency toward hits rather than misses cannot rea- mately evaluate the relative statistical significance of
1222
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003700146069012gist
Ullman, Krippner, &
Feldstein (1966)
Ullman et al. (1966)
Ullman (1969)
Ullman (1969)
Ullman, Krippner, &
Vaughan (1973)
Ullman & Krippner
(1969)
H. Pilot sessions
53
14
42
22
z = 4.200
Z = 2.21
.

--
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
against eventual replicability. In the Maimonides se- the night. He did this notably by misinterpreting an
ries, likewise, three successive replications (Lines C, ambiguous statement in the Maimonides reports, not
D, and E in Table 1) yielded no significant result, yet
they are part of a program yielding highly significant
overall results.
mentioning that his interpretation was incompatible
with other passages; his interpretation was in fact er-
roncous, as shown by Akers (1984, pp. 128-129).
Furthermore, Hansel did not alert the reader to the
great care exerted by the researchers to eliminate pos-
sible sources of sensory cuing. Most important is the
fact that Hansel did not provide any plausible ac-
count-other than fraud-of how the opportunities
for sensory cuing that he claimed existed would be
likely to lead to the striking findings of the research.
For example, he seemed to consider important the
fact that at Maimonides the agent could leave his or
her room during the night to go to the bathroom,
whereas in Wyoming the agent had a room with its
own bathroom, and the outer door to the room was
sealed with tape to prevent the agent from emerging.
Hansel did not attempt to say how the agent's visit to
the bathroom could have altered the details of the
percipient's dreams each night in a manner distinc-
tively appropriate to that night's target. The only
plausible route of influence on the dream record
seems to be deliberate fraud involving the researchers
and their subjects. The great number and variety of
personnel in these studies-experimenters, agents,
percipients, and judges-makes fraud especially un-
likely as an explanation of the positive findings; but
Hansel did not mention this important fact.
If results of such potentially great interest and
scientific importance as those of the Maimonides
program had been reported on a more conventional
topic, one might expect them to be widely and ac-
curately described in reviews of the field to which
they were relevant, and to be analyzed carefully as a
basis for sound evaluation of whether replication and
extension of the research were indicated, or of whether
errors could be detected and understood. What has
happened in this instance of anomalous research
findings?
Representation of the Maimonides
Research in Books by Psychologists
It is appropriate to begin with E. M. Hansel's 1980
revision of his carlier critical book on parapsychology.
As part of his attempt to bring the earlier book up to
date, he included an entire chapter on experiments
on telepathy in dreams. One page was devoted to a
description of the basic method used in the Maimon-
ides experiments; one paragraph summarized the im-
pressive outcome of 10 of the experiments. The rest
of the chapter was devoted mainly to a specific account
of the experiment in which psychologist Robert Van
de Castle was the subject (the outcome is summarized
in Line G of my Table 1) and to the attempted rep-
lication at the University of Wyoming (Belvedere &
Foulkes, 1971), in which Van de Castle was again the
subject. Another page was devoted to another of the
Maimonides experiments that was also repeated at
the University of Wyoming (Foulkes et al., 1972).
Hansel did not mention the replication by Globus et
al. (1968), whose authors felt that the results encour-
aged further exploration. Hansel gave more weight to
the two negative outcomes at Wyoming than to the
sum of the Maimonides research, arguing that sensory
tues supposedly permitted by the procedures at Mai-
monides, not possible because of greater care taken
by the Wyoming experimenters, were responsible for
the difference in results. He did not provide, of course,
the full account of procedures presented in the original
Maimonides reports that might persuade many read-
ers that Hansel's interpretation is far from compelling.
.
Nor did he consider why some of the other experi-
ments at Maimonides, not obviously distinguished in
the care with which they were done from the two that
were replicated (e.g., those on Lines E, M, and O of
Table 1) yielded a close-to-chance outcome such as
Hansel might have expected sensory cuing to prevent.
Hansel exaggerated the opportunities for sensory
cuing-that is, for the percipient to obtain by ordinary
sensory means some information about the target for
li appears to me that all of Hansel's criticisms
of the Maimonides experiments are relevant only on
the hypothesis of fraud (except for the mistaken crit-
icism I have mentioned above). He said that uninten-
tional communication was more likely but provided
no evidence either that it occurred or that such com-
munication-in any form in which it might have oc-
curred-could have produced such consistent results
as emerged from the Maimonides experiments. I infer
that Hansel was merely avoiding making explicit his
unsupported accusations of fraud. Fraud is an inter-
pretation always important to keep in mind, and it is
one that could not be entirely excluded even by pre-
cautions going beyond those used in the Wyoming
studies. But the fact that fraud was as always, theo-
retically possible hardly justifies dismissal of a series
of carefully conducted studies that offer important
suggestions for opening up a new line of inquiry into
a topic potentially of great significance. Especially re-
grettable is Hansel's description of various supposed
defects in the experiments as though they mark the
experiments as being carelessly conducted by general
scientific criteria, whereas in fact the supposed defects
are relevant only if one assumes fraud. A reader who
is introduced to the Maimonides research by Hansel's
chapter is likely to get a totally erroneous impression
of the care taken by the experimenters to avoid various
possible sources of error. The one thing they could
November 1985 . American Psychologist
1225
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
-

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
-
not avoid was obtaining results that Hansel considered
a priori impossible, hence evidence of fraud; but
Hansel was not entirely frank about his reasoning.
An incidental point worth noting is that Hansel
did not himself apply, in his critical attack, the stan-
dards of evidence he demanded of the researchers.
His conclusions were based implicitly on the assump-
tion that the difference of outcome between the Mai-
monides and the Wyoming experiments was a genuine
difference, not attributable to random variation. He
did not even raise the question, as he surely would
have if, in some parallel instance, the Maimonides
researchers had claimed or implied statistical signif-
icance where it was questionable. In fact, the difference
of outcome might well have arisen from random error,
for the percipient's own judgments the difference is
significant at the 5% level (2-tailed), but for the out-
siders' judgments it does not approach significance.
Another 1980 book is The Psychology of Tran-
scendence, by Andrew Neher, in which almost 100
pages are devoted to "psychic experience." Neher dif-
fered from the other authors I refer to in describing
the Maimonides work as a "series of studies of great
interest" (p. 145), but this evaluation seems to be ne-
gated by his devoting only three lines to it and four
lines to unsuccessful replications.
A third 1980 publication, The Psychology of the
Psychic, by David Marks and Richard Kammann,
provides less of a general review of recent parapsy-
chology than Hansel's book or even Neher's one long
chapter. It is largely devoted to the techniques of
mentalists (that is, conjurors specializing in psycho-
logical rather than physical effects) and can be useful
to anyone encountering a mentalist who pretends to
be "psychic." Most readers are not likely to be aware
that parapsychological research receives only limited
attention. The jacket blurbs give a very different view
of the book, as do the authors in their introductory
sentences:
ESP is just around the next corner. When you get there, it
is just around the next corner. Having now turned over one
hundred of these corners, we decided to call it quits and
report our findings for public review. (Marks & Kammann,
1980, p. 4)
Given this introduction to the nature of the book,
readers might suppose it would at least mention any
comer that many parapsychologists have judged to be
an impressive turning. But the Maimonides dream
experiments received no mention at all.
Another volume, by psychologist James Alcock
(1981), quite clearly purports to include a general re-
view and evaluation of parapsychological research.
Alcock mentioned (p. 6) that Hansel had examined
the Maimonides experiments, but the only account
of them that Alcock offered (on p. 163) was incidental
to a discussion of control groups. By implication he
seemed to reject the Maimonides experiments because
they included no control groups. He wrote that "a
control group, for which no sender or no target was
used, would appear essential" (p. 163). Later he added,
"One could, alternatively, 'send' when the subject was
not in the dream state, and compare 'success' in this
case with success in dream state trials" (p. 163). The
first of these statements suggests a relevant use of con-
trol groups but errs in calling it essential; in other
psychological research, Alcock would have doubtless
readily recognized that within-subject control can,
where feasible, be much more efficient and pertinent
than a separate control group. His second statement"
suggests a type of experiment that is probably im-
possible (because in satisfactory form it seems to re-
quire the subject to dream whether awake or asleep
and not to know whether he or she was awake or
asleep). This second kind of experiment, moreover,
has special pertinence only to a comparison between
dreaming and waking, not to the question of whether
ESP is manifested in dreaming.
Alcock, in short, did not seem to recognize that
the design of the Maimonides experiments was based
on controls exactly parallel to those used by innu-
merable psychologists in other research with similar
logical structure (and even implied, curiously enough,
in his own second suggestion). He encouraged readers
to think that the Maimonides studies are beyond the
pale of acceptable experimental design, whereas in
fact they are fine examples of appropriate use of
within-subject control rather than between-subjects
control.
The quality of thinking with which Alcock con-
fronted the Maimonides research appeared also in a
passage that did not refer to it by name. Referring to
an article published in The Humanist by Ethel Grod-
zins Romm, he wrote,
Romm (1977) argued that a fundamental problem with both
the dream telepathy research and the remote viewing tests
is that the reports suffer from what she called "shoe-fitting"
language; she cited a study in which the sender was installed
in a room draped in white fabric and had ice cubes poured
down his back. A receiver who reported "white" was im-
mediately judged to have made a "hit" by an independent
panel. Yet, as she observed, words such as "miserable",
"wet", or "icy" would have been better hits. . . . Again, the
obvious need is for a control group. Why are they not used?
(p. 163)
What Romm described as "shoe fitting" (misinter-
preting events to fit one's expectations) is an important
kind of error that is repeatedly made in interpretation
of everyday occurrences by people who believe they
are psychic. But the dream telepathy research at Mai-
monides was well protected against this kind of error
by the painstaking controls that Alcock seemed not
to have noticed. Surely Romm must be referring to
some other and very sloppy dream research?
1226
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R000100140001-2Psychologist

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
Not at all. The details in this paragraph, and Expect?" and it repeatedly speaks of "cult phuds,"
meaning people with PhDs who are interested in
parapsychological problems. Alcock's repetition of
Romm's misstatements in a context lacking these
clues may well be taken by many a reader as scholarly
writing based on correct information and rational
thought. Paradoxically, both Alcock's paragraph and
Romm's article are excellent examples of the shoe-
fitting error that both decry in others who are in fact
carefully avoiding it.
The last of the five books that bring, or fail to
bring, the Maimonides research to the attention of
psychologists and their students is Anomalistic Psy-
chology: A Study of Extraordinary Phenomena of Be-
havior and Experience, a 1982 volume by Leonard
Zusne and Warren H. Jones. This is in many ways
an excellent book, and it is also the one of the five
that comes closest to including a general review of
important recent research in parapsychology. Its brief
account of the Maimonides dream experiments, how-
ever, misrepresented them in ways that should seri-
ously reduce a reader's interest in considering them
further.
Zusne and Jones's description of the basic pro-
cedure made three serious errors. First, it implied that
one of the experimenters had a chance to know the
identity of the target. ("After the subject falls asleep,
an art reproduction is selected from a large collection
randomly, placed in an envelope, and given to the
agent" p. 260). In fact, precautions were taken to en-
sure that no one but the agent could know the identity
of the target. Second, the authors stated that "three
judges . .. . rate their confidence that the dream con-
tent matches the target picture" (p. 260), leading the
reader to suppose that the judges were informed of
the identity of the target at the time of rating. In fact,
a judge was presented with a dream transcript and a
I looked up in a 1977 issue of The Humanist the
article by Romm that Alcock cited. The half page on
shoe-fitting language gave as examples this item from
the Maimonides research and also the SRI remote- pool of potential targets and was asked to .rate the
viewing experiments (Puthoff & Targ-1976) done at -degree of similarity between the transcript and each
SRI International. In both cases what was said was
member of the pool, while being unaware of which
member had been the target. Third, there was a sim-
ilarly, though more obscurely, misleading description
of how ratings were obtained from the dreamer.
pure fiction, based on failure to note what was done
in the experiments and in particular that the experi-
menters were well aware of the danger of shoe-fitting
language and that the design of their experiments in-
This misinformation was followed by even more
serious misrepresentation of the research and, by im-
plication, of the competence of the researchers. Zusne
and Jones (1982) wrote that Ullman and Krippner
(1978) had found that dreamers were not influenced
telepathically unless they knew in advance that an
attempt would be made to influence them. This led,
they wrote, to the subject's being "primed prior to
going to sleep" through the experimenter's
"corporated procedures to ensure that it could not oc-
cur. Romm's ignorance about the Maimonides re-
search and her apparent willingness to fabricate false-
hoods about it should be recognized by anyone who
had read any of the Maimonides research publica-
tions. Yet Alcock accepted and repeated the fictions
as though they were true. His presentation in the con-
"text of a book apparently in the scientific tradition
seems to me more dangerous than Romm's original
preparing the receiver through experiences that were related
to the content of the picture to be telepathically transmitted
during the night. Thus, when the picture was Van Gogh's
Corridor of the St. Paul Hospital, which depicts a lonely
figure in the ballways of a mental hospital, the receiver. (1)
article, for anyone with a scientific orientation should
be able to recognize Romm's article as propaganda.
Its title, for example, is "When You Give a Closet
Occultist a PhD, What Kind of Research Can You
November 1985 . American Psychologist
1227
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
even more in Romm's article, point unmistakably,
though inaccurately, to the fifth night of the first pre-
cognitive series at Maimonides. The actual details of
target and response would alone deprive it of much
of its value as an example of shoe fitting. As reported
by Krippner, Ullman, & Honorton (1971), the target
was a morning experience that included being in a
room that was draped with white sheets. The subject's
first dream report had included the statement, "I was
just standing in a room, surrounded by white. Every
imaginable thing in that room was white" (p. 201).
There is more similarity here than Romm and Alcock
acknowledged in mentioning from this passage only
the single word "white."
More important, however, is the fact that the ex-
periment they were referring to provided no oppor-
tunity for shoe fitting. The procedures followed in the
experiment were completely misrepresented in a way
that created the illusion that the possibility existed.
There was no panel, in the sense of a group of people
gathered together and capable of influencing each
other. The judges, operating independently, separately
judged every one of the 64 possible combinations of
target and transcript yielded by the eight nights of the
experiment, not just the eight correct pairings, and
they had no clues to which those eight were. Their
responses are hardly likely to have been immediate,
as they required reading the entire night's transcript.
Because each judge was working alone and was not
recording times, there would have been no record if
a particular response had been immediate, and no
record of what particular element in the transcript
led to an immediate response.
--

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
heard Rosza's Spellbound played on a phonograph; (2) heard
the monitor laugh hysterically in the room; (3) was addressed
as "Mr. Van Gogh" by the monitor; (4) was shown paintings
done by mental patients; (5) was given a pill and a glass of
water, and (6) was daubed with a piece of cotton dipped in
acetone. The receiver was an English "sensitive," but it is
obvious that no psychic sensitivity was required to figure
out the general content of the picture and to produce an
appropriate report, whether any dreams were actually seen
or not. (pp. 260-261)
If researchers were to report positive results of
the experiment described here by Zusne and Jones
and were to claim that it provided some positive ev-
idence of ESP, what would a reader conclude? Surely,
that the researchers were completely incompetent, but
probably not that they were dishonest. For dishonesty
to take such a frank and transparent form is hardly
credible.
Incompetence of the researchers is not, however,
a proper inference. The simple fact, which anyone
can easily verify, is that the account Zusne and Jones
gave of the experiment is grossly inaccurate. What
Zusne and Jones have done is to describe (for one
specific night of the experiment) some of the stimuli
provided to the dreamer the next morning, after his
dreams had been recorded and his night's sleep was
over. Zusne and Jones erroneously stated that these
stimuli were provided before the night's sleep, to prime
the subject to have or falsely report having the desired
kind of dream. The correct sequence of events was
quite clearly stated in the brief reference Zusne and
Jones cited (Ullman & Krippner, 1978), as well as in
the original research report (Krippner, Honorton, &
Ullman, 1972).
I can understand and sympathize with Zusne and
Jones's error. The experiment they cited is one in
which the nocturnal dreamer was seeking to dream
in response to a set of stimuli to be created and pre-
sented to him the next morning. As may be seen in
Table 1, results from such precognitive sessions (all
done with a single subject) were especially strong. This
apparent transcendence of time as well as space makes
the precognitive findings seem at least doubly impos-
sible to most of us. An easy misreading, therefore, on
initially scanning the research report, would be to
suppose the stimuli to have been presented partly in
advance (because some parts obviously involved a
waking subject) and partly during sleep.
This erroneous reading on which Zusne and
Jones based their account could easily have been cor-
rected by a more careful rereading. In dealing with
other topics, they might have realized the improba-
bility that researchers could have been so grossly in-
competent and could have checked the accuracy of
their statements before publishing them. Zusne and
Jones are not alone in this tendency to quick misper-
ception of parapsychological research through pre-
conception and prejudice; we have already seen it in
Alcock's book. Alcock (1983) wrote the review of
Zusne and Jones's book for Contemporary Psychology.
the book-review journal of the American Psycholog-
ical Association, and he did not mention this egregious
error, even though very slight acquaintance with the
Maimonides research should suffice to detect it.
Discussion
The experiments at the Maimonides Medical Center
on the possibility of ESP in dreams clearly merit care-
ful attention from psychologists who, for whatever
reason, are interested in the question of ESP. To firm
believers in the impossibility of ESP, they pose a chal-
lenge to skill in detecting experimental flaws or to the
understanding of other sources of error. To those who
can conceive that ESP might be possible, they convey
suggestions about some of the conditions influencing
its appearance or absence and about techniques for
investigating it.
This attention is not likely to be given by psy-
chologists whose knowledge about the experiments
comes from the books by their fellow psychologists
that purport to review parapsychological research.
Some of those books engage in nearly incredible fal-
sification of the facts about the experiments; others
simply neglect them. I believe it is fair to say that
none of these books has correctly identified any defect
in the Maimonides experiments other than ones rel-
cvant only to the hypothesis of fraud or on inappro-
priate statistical reasoning (easily remedied by new
calculations from the published data). I do not mean
that the Maimonides experiments are models of design
and execution. I have already called attention to a
design flaw that prevents sensitive analysis of some of
the experiments; and the control procedures were vi-
olated at one session, as Akers (1984) pointed out on
the basis of the full information supplied in the orig-
inal report. (Neither of these genuine defects was
mentioned in any of the five books I have reviewed
here, an indication of their authors' general lack of
correct information about the Maimonides experi-
ments.)
Readers who doubt that the falsification is as ex-
treme as I have pictured it need only consult the
sources I have referred to. Their doubt might also be
reduced by familiarity with some of James Bradley's
research (1981, 1984). In his 1984 article, he reported
similar misrepresentations of fact on a topic, robust-
ness of procedures of statistical inference, on which
psychologists would not be thought to have nearly the
strength of preconception that many are known to
have about ESP. How much more likely, then, falsi-
fication on so emotionally laden a topic as ESP is for
many psychologists! In the earlier article, Bradley
(1981) presented experimental evidence (for college
students, in this case, not psychologists) that confi-
November 1985 . American Psychologist
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
1228

-
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP.96-00789R003100140001-2
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
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 & Monnet, 1979) of university
professors in various fields, 34% of psychologists were
found to consider ESP either an established fact or a
likely possibility, exactly the same proportion es con,
sidered it an impossibility. In this survey, psychologists
-
Tess frequently 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 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.
REFERENCES
Akers. C. (1984). Methodological 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.
Ayeroff. F., & Abelson, R. P. (1976). ESP and ESB: Belief in personal
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.
Blackmore, S. J. (1984). A psychological theory of the out-of-body
experience. Journal of Parapsychology: 48, 201-218.
Bradley, J. V. (1981). Overconfidence in ignorant experts. Bulletin
of the Psychonomic Society, 17, 82-84.
Bradley, J. V. (1984). Antinonrobustness: A case study in the so-
ciology of science. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22. 463-
466.
Braud, W. (1977). Long-distance dream and presleep telepathy. In
J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, & R. L. Morris (Eds.), Research in
parapsychology 1976 (pp. 154-155). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow.
Child. I. 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). Pri-missing and displacement:
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 Beeinflussung von
Träumen. [Experiments oo telepathic influence on dreams).
Zeitschrift für Parapsychologie und Grenzgebiete der Psychologie.
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-
arion. 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 Institute of Elec-
trical and Electronics Engineers. 70. 136-170.
Krippner, S., Honorton, E., & Ullman, M. (1972). A second pre-
cognitive dream study with Malcolm Bessent. Journal of the
American Society for Psychical Research, 66. 269-279.
Krippner, S., Honorion, C., & Ullman, M. (1973). An experiment
in dream telepathy with "The Grateful Dead." Journal of the
American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry and Medicine. 20,
9-17.
Krippner, S., Honorton, C., Ullman, 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.
Krippner, S., & Ullman, M. (1970). Telepathy and dreams: A con-
trolled experiment with electroencephalogram-electro-oculogram
monitoring. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 151, 394-
403.
Krippner, 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-generated 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.
Mosteller, 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-
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). Experimental attempts to influence pseudo-
random number sequences. Journal of the American Society for
Psychical Research, 76, 359-374.
Rechtschaffen, 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 occultist a Pb.D.,
what kind of research can you expect? The Humanist. 37(3),
12-15.
Rosenthal. R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Strauch, 1. (1970). Dreams and psi in the laboratory: In R. Cavanna
November 1985 . American Psychologist
ADE
1229
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
---
.

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
(Ed.), Psi favorable states of consciousness (pp. 46-54). New York:
Parapsychology Foundation.
Ullman, M. (1969). Telepathy and dreams. Experimental Medicine
& Surgery. 27. 19-38.
Ullman, M., & Krippner, S. (1969). A laboratory approach to the
nocturnal dimension of paranormal experience: Report of a con-
firmatory study using the REM monitoring technique. Biological
Psychiatry. 1. 259-270.
Uliman, M., & Krippner, S. (1978). Experimental dream studies.
In M. Ebon (Ed.), The Signet handbook of parapsychology (pp.
409-422). New York: New American Library.
Ullman, M., Krippner, S., & Feldstein, S. (1966). Experimentally
induced telepathic dreams: Two studies using EEG-REM moo-
itoring technique. International Journal of Neuropsychiatry. 2.
420-437.
Uliman, M., Krippper, S., & Vaughan, A. (1973). Dream telepathy.
New York: Macmillan.
Van de Castle, R. L. (1971). The study of GESP in a group setting
by means of dreams. Journal of Parapsychology: 35, 312.
Wagner, M. W., & Monnet, M. (1979). Attitudes of college professors
toward extra-sensory perception. Zetetic Scholar, no. 5, 7-16.
Wolman, B. B. (Ed.). (1977). Handbook of parapsychology. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
ZusDe, L., & Jones, W. H. (1982). Anomalistic psychology: A study
of extraordinary phenomena of behavior and experience. Hillsdale,
. NJ: Erlbaum.
1230
November 1985 . American Psychologist
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
:
i
4
1
:
I
S
a
a
t
L
f
P
t
t
i
0
N
C

4
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. LA BERGE, 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 5 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; 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 experimental approach was suggested by previous investigations (An-
trobus, et 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 not, 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. S. 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 actions have some-
times shown very good correlations with polygraphically recorded eye move-
ments and muscle activation (Rechtschaffen, 1973), it seemed plausible that
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 of 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 predetermined 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
(age, sex )
Nights
recorded
Lucid dreams reported
(sleep stage)
Lucid dream signals
verified*/reported
S.L. (32 yr., M)
20
17 (REM)
14/15
R.K. (28 yr., M)
4
5 (REM)
3/5
L.L. (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 awakened from REM),
the subject reported performing the agreed-upon signal during a vivid and lengthy lucid
dream. However, neither her EOG nor wrist EMG showed any sign of the reported
signals, as might be expected from the normal lack of correspondence between dream
gaze and eye movements during descending Stage 1 sleep (Rechtschaffen, 1973).
+ + The subject awoke, in this case, during the transition from NREM Stage 2 to REM.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
....
:

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
729
LUCID DREAMING
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.)
EEG
U
EOG
EMG
chân
L
L
EMG
wrist
EMG
Acht
wrist
FIG. 1. Polygraph record of a subject signaling that he knows he is dreaming. The
subject swoke 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 EEG (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: 50gV; 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)" (Rechtschaffen & Kales,
1968). This definition allows variation in the three parameters, the details
of which will be reported elsewhere. In brief, the variations 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 rhythm, 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 during 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 intrusions of wakeful-
ness.
(A) AWAKE
EEC ++
(B) LUCID DREAM
EMG -
wrist
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 clearly 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. The 2- to 4-Hz EEG
activity prominent in the lucid dream sample ( B) is highly characteristic of REM sleep.
( Calibrations: 50 AV; 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-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
...
... . ...
...

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 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, C. 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).] Sleep
Reviews, 1978, 166, 30.
GREEN, C. Lucid dreams. London: Hamilton, 1968.
L.ABERGE, S. Lucid dreaming: some personal observations. Sleep Research, 1979, 8,
153.
LABERGE, 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.D. dissertation, Stanford Univer., 1980. (University Microfilms International,
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. 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.
McGuigan & R. A. Schoonover (Eds.), The psychophysiology of thinking. New
York: Academic Press, 1973. Pp. 153-200.
RECHTSCHAFFEN, A., & KALES, A. (Eds.) A manual of standardized terminology,
techniques and scoring system for sleep stages of human subjects. Washington,
D.C .: United States Government Printing Office, 1968. (National Institute of
Health Publication No. 204)
SALAMY, J. Instrumental responding to internal cues associated with REM sleep. Psy-
conomic Science, 1970, 18, 342-343.
SCHWARTZ, B. A., & LEFEBVRE, A. Contacts veille/P.M.O. II: Les P.M.O. morcelees.
Revue d'Electroencephalographie et de Neurophysiologie Clinique, 1973, 3, 165.
176.
TART, C. S. From spontaneous event to lucidity: a review of attempts to 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. Tart (Ed.), Altered states of conscious-
ness. 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
Spring and Summer 1986, Volume 7. Numbers 2 and 3
Pages 251 [121] 258 [128]
ISSN 0271 0137
ISBN 0-930195 02 7
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
Spring and Sun
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 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.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2

252 [122]
LaBERGE/LEVITAN/DEMENT
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
PHYSIOLOGY 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 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,
left, right). In some cases, subjects received additional instructions 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 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 the 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 (x2=38.3, 1df, 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-A2], 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 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 lucid
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
...

254 [124]
LaBERGEApproved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 (ID) DREAMING
255 [125]
C3-A2
LOC -
ROC
EMG
Figure 1: A typical dream-initated lucid dream (DILD). (Calibrations are 50uV and 5 seconds.]
T3
T4
LOC
ROC-
EMG
2
ECG-
--.
6
Figure 2: A typical lucid dream initiated from a transient awakening during REM (WILD).
[Calibrations are 50 uV and 5 seconds.]
Table 1
Comparisons of Physiological Variables for Lucid and Non-lucid Epochs
Variables 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
EMLND > 0
[{(12)=4.36; p <. 0001]
[{(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 >
[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 2-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
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2

256 [126]
LaBERGE/LEVITAN/DEMENT
PHYSIOLOGY OF LUCID DREAMING
257 [127]
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
1.0
08
REM DENSITY
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0
30 40
5.0
RESPIRATION RATE
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-50 -4.0 -30 -2.0 -1.0 00 1.0 2.0
3.0 40 5.0
1.4
HEART RATE
1.2
+
10
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 -
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-5.0
-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0
2.0
3.0
0
5.0
SKIN POTENTIAL
1.5
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.0 -
-0.5
-5.0
-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 00 1.0
2.0
3.0
5.0
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)
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).
Lucid dreams have been widely reported to characteristically occur "al-
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, 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
+
2.0

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
7
Conscious Mind,
Sleeping Brain
Perspectives on Lucid Dreaming
Edited by
Jayne Gackenbach
University of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, Iowa
and
Stephen LaBerge
Stanford University
Stanford, California
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 "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)
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
1988
Plenum Press . New York and London
STEPHEN LABERGE . Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2

136
STEPHEN LABERGE
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).
Schwartz and Lefebvre (1973) noted that frequent transitory arousals were 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
PSYCHOPHYSIULUUT VI LUCIU UNE/ WIIU
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : GIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 of the 34 nights of the study, 35
lucid 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,
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, I 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 Hearne (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 < . 001). 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 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2

258 [128]
LaBERApproved ForRelease 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
tion of psychophysiological correspondence during REM dreaming. The
viability of this approach has been demonstrated for a variety of dreamed
behaviors including dreamed hand and eye movements, subjective estima-
tion of temporal duration in the dream (LaBerge, 1985a), dreamed singing
and counting (LaBerge and Dement, 1982a), voluntary alterations of respira-
tion (LaBerge and Dement, 1982b), and dreamed sexual activity (LaBerge,
Greenleaf, and Kedzierski, 1983).
References
Aserinsky, E. (1971). Rapid eye movement density and pattern in the sleep of normal young
adults. Psychophysiology, 8, 361-375.
Cohen, D. (1979). Sleep and dreaming: Origins, nature and functions. Oxford: Pergamon.
Dane, J. (1983). An empirical evaluation of two techniques for lucid dream induction. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University.
Fenwick, P., Schatzman, M., Worsley, A., Adams, J., Stone, S., and Baker, A. (1984). Lucid
dreaming: Correspondence between dreamed and actual events in one subject during REM
sleep. Biological Psychology, 18, 243-252.
Garfield, P. (1975). Psychological concomitants of the lucid dream state. Sleep Research, 4, 183.
Green, C. (1968). Lucid dreams. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Hearne, K.M.T. (1978). Lucid dreams: An electrophysiological and psychological study. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Liverpool.
LaBerge, S. (1980). Lucid dreaming as a learnable skill: A case study. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
51, 1039-1042.
LaBerge, S. (1985a). Lucid dreaming. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher.
LaBerge, S. (1985b). The temporal distribution of lucid dreams. Sleep Research, 14, 113.
LaBerge, S., and Dement, W.C. (1982a). Lateralization of alpha activity for dreamed singing
and counting during REM sleep. Psychophysiology, 19, 331-332.
LaBerge, S., and Dement, W.C. (1982b). Voluntary control of respiration during REM sleep.
Sleep Research, 11, 107.
LaBerge, S., Greenleaf, W., and Kedzierski, B. (1983). Physiological responses to dreamed sex-
ual activity during lucid REM sleep. Psychophysiology, 20, 454-455.
LaBerge, S., Nagel, L.E., Dement, W.C., and Zarcone, V.P. (1981). Lucid dreaming verified by
volitional communication during REM sleep. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 727-732.
Rechtschaffen, A., and Kales, A. (Eds.) (1968). A manual of standardized teminology, techniques
and scoring system for sleep stages of human subjects. Bethesda: HEW Neurological Information
Network.
Tyson, P.D., Ogilvie, R.D., and Hunt, H.T. (1984). Lucid, prelucid, and nonlucid dreams related
to the amount of EEG alpha activity during REM sleep. Psychophysiology, 21, 442-451.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
:

mut
remaining 21 (28%) as WILApproved forcRelease 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R0031001460012ributed within REM periods and
non
than WILDs (binomial test, p < . 0001). Compared to DILDs, WILDs were
more frequently immediately preceded by physiological indications of awaken-
ing (Chi-squared = 38.3, 1 df. p < . 0001), establishing the validity of classify-
ing lucid dreams in this manner. See Figures 2 and 3 for illustrations of these two
types of lucid dreams.
The distributions of DILD and WILD latencies from the onset of REM are
significantly different (LaBerge, Levitan, & Dement, 1986). A Wald-Wolfowitz
test demonstrated that WILDs do not occur as early or late in REM periods as
DILDs do (p < . 0015). This difference may be simply explained: As a matter of
definition, a necessary condition for a WILD to occur is a transitory awakening
followed by a return to REM sleep. If the awakening were to happen too near to
the beginning of REM, the REM period might simply be aborted. Similarly, if
the awakening were to occur too near to the "natural" end of the REM period, it
would be more likely that REM would not resume but that wakefulness would
persist or a NREM sleep stage would ensue.
To summarize, an elevated level of CNS activation seems to be a necessary
condition for the occurrence of lucid dreams. Were this condition unnecessary,
T3
T4
LOC ..
ROC
EMG
2
ECG -
Figure 3. A typical lucid dream initiated from a transient awakening during REM (WILD). Six
channels of physiological data (left and right temporal EEG [T3 and T4], left and right eye
movements [LOC and ROC], chin muscle tone IEMG], and electrocardiogram IECG]) from the
last 3 min of a 14-min REM period are shown. The subject awoke at 1 and after 40 seconds
returned to REM sleep at 2, and realized he was dreaming 15 s later and signaled at 3. Next he
carried out the agreed-upon experimental task in his lucid dream, singing between signals 3
and 4, and counting between signals 4 and 5. This allowed comparison of left and right
hemisphere activation during the two tasks (LaBerge & Dement, 1982b). Note the heart-rate
acceleration-deceleration pattern at awakening (1) and at lucidity onset (3) and the skin poten-
tial potential artifacts in the EEG (particularly T4) at lucidity onset (3). Calibrations are 50 u.V
and 5 seconds.
perhaps every stage of sleep. Why then is CNS activation necessary for lucid
dreaming? Evidently the high level of cognitive function involved in lucid
dreaming requires a correspondingly high level of neuronal activation. In terms
of Antrobus's (1986) adaptation of Anderson's (1983) ACT* model of cognition
to dreaming, working memory capacity is proportional to cognitive activation,
which in turn is proportional to cortical activation. Becoming lucid requires an
adequate level of working memory to activate the presleep intention to recognize
that one is dreaming. This level of activation is apparently not always available
during sleep but normally only during phasic REM.
THE TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF LUCID DREAMS
St. Thomas Aquinas mentioned "that sometimes while asleep a man may
judge that what he sees is a dream, discerning as it were, between things and
their images" and that this happens especially "towards the end of sleep, in
sober men and those who are gifted with a strong imagination." (Aquinas, 1947,
p. 430). Van Eeden (1913) stated that his lucid dreams invariably occurred
between 5 and 8 o'clock in the morning. By way of explanation, he quoted
Dante's characterization of these hours as the time "when swallows begin to
warble and our mind is least clogged by the material body." Garfield (1975)
exactly agreed with van Eeden's observation, though perhaps not with his poetic
explanation. LaBerge (1979) plotted the times of 212 of his lucid dreams and
found their pattern of occurrence closely fit the usual cyclic distribution of REM
periods. He suggested that the fact that most REM sleep occurs toward the end of
the night provided a plausible explanation for Van Eeden's and Garfield's obser-
vations. Later, LaBerge (1980a) tested this hypothesis by comparing the tem-
poral distribution of his lucid dreams with that expected on the basis of normative
data from Williams, Karacan, and Jursch (1974). A chi-square test indicated that
the observed distribution of lucid dreams in the first three REM periods was not
significantly different from what would be expected on the basis of mean REM
period lengths at different times of the night.
Cohen (1979) argued that the left hemisphere shows a gradual increase in
dominance across the night (but see Armitage, Hoffmann, Moffitt, & Shearer,
1985). Since left-hemisphere abstract symbolic functions are undoubtedly crucial
for lucid dreaming, Cohen's GILD hypothesis led LaBerge (1985b) to predict
that the probability of dream lucidity should increase with time of night.
This hypothesis was tested by LaBerge et al. (1986). For each of their 12
subjects, a median split for total REM time was determined; 11 of their subjects
had more lucid dreams in the later half of their REM than in the earlier (binomial
test; p < . 01). For the combined sample, relative lucidity probability was calcu-
lated for REM periods 1 through 6 of the night by dividing the total number of
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2

140
DIETAEIN LABERGE
lucid dreams observed in a gi Approved -ionRalease.2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
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 activation (EM, RR, HR, SP) even
approached significance when entered into the regression equation, indicating
that the increase in lucid dream probability is not explained by a general increase
in CNS activation across the night. 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.
Another factor influencing the temporal distribution of lucid dreams is
initiation type. LaBerge's (1987) personal record of lucid dreams indicates that,
for him, W-type lucid dreams are over 10 times more frequent during afternoon
naps than they are during the first REM period of the night (p < . 0002).
EEG ALPHA ACTIVITY DURING REM LUCID DREAMS
The fact that lucid dreaming occurs during REM sleep partially defines the
sort of EEG activity characteristic of lucid dreams. However, the standard crite-
ria for determining REM sleep (Rechtschaffen & Kales, 1968) are quite general
when referring to the EEG, being simply "relatively low voltage, mixed fre-
quency," without specifying how much of which frequencies might be mixed.
As noted previously, REM sleep is a labile and heterogeneous state. For exam-
ple, during REM, the EEG sometimes shows predominant 2 to 3 Hz "sawtooth"
waves, whereas at other times it may exhibit prominent 8 to 10 Hz alpha waves.
Consequently, the question arises: Does the range of EEG activity characteristic
of lucid dreams reliably differ in any way from that of nonlucid dreams?
In a series of studies, Ogilvie and colleagues have pursued the hypothesis
that lucid dreams are associated with high levels of alpha activity. In the first of
these investigations, they came to the initial "impression that alpha is the domi-
nant EEG frequency during lucid dreams" on the rather shaky grounds of a
comparison of "percent alpha in the EEG" of just two lucid dream REM periods
with percentage alpha for six nonlucid dream REM periods for a single subject
(Ogilvie, Hunt, Sawicki, & McGowan, 1978, p. 165).
. -
Ogilvie, Hunt, Tyson, Lucescu, and Jeakins (1982) followed up their pre-
liminary work with a larger study in which 10 subjects (all good dream recallers,
with a wide range of lucid dreaming ability) were recorded 2 nights each in the
sleep laboratory, during which they were awakened four times per night from
REM sleep: half of the time during periods of relatively high alpha and half of the
time during relatively low alpha. Dream reports were collected and rated on a
lucidity scale by a judge blind to the awakening condition. Significantly higher
lucidity ratings were obtained for high-alpha compared to low-alpha awakenings.
Several methodological problems of this study cast doubt on Ogilvie et al.'s
PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY OF LUCID DREAMING
(1982) conclusion that lucid dreams are associated with high alpha activity. One
is that the differences found between low and high alpha reports were based
primarily on the degrees of prelucidity in the reports. Even more important, we
have no assurance of whether, in either condition, the episode of prelucidity or
lucidity occurred in association with the final 20 to 30 second period of either
high or low alpha activity that determined the awakening condition. Moreover,
because none of the dreams classified as lucid were marked by any signals, we
have no proof that they were in fact lucid dreams, nor in any case do we have any
way of determining what the degree of alpha activity was during the frequently
brief episodes of lucidity.
Because of Ogilvie et al.'s (1982) design, we cannot exclude the possibility
that what their study may actually have demonstrated is that the tendencies of
subjects to retrospectively judge themselves to have been briefly or partially
lucid vary with the amount of alpha activity either just before or during the
process of awakening. Support for this interpretation comes from an earlier
study, which concluded that mentation reports collected from REM periods
showing EEGs with a high proportion of alpha waves were associated with
"some feeling of control over the content" and were frequently labeled by
subjects as "thoughts" rather than "dreams" (Goodenough, Shapiro, Holden,
& Steinschriber, 1959).
There is another possible design problem with the Ogilvie et al. (1982)
study that seems serious enough to merit mention: The judges' lucidity ratings
were based not upon the spontaneous dream reports but on the subjects' answers
to rather leading questions subsequently posed by the interviewer, such as "Was
there any point when you wondered whether or not you might be dreaming?"
and "Was there any point at which you knew you were dreaming while the
dream was going on?" The demand characteristics should be obvious. Addi-
tionally, there is a problem that retrospective judgments about earlier states of
mind are likely to be confounded by our current mental state. Cognitive capaci-
ties we currently possess are likely to be mistakenly remembered as having been
present in an earlier state. A conservative approach should perhaps put more
weight on the original dream reports; in the present context, one would like to
know how many subjects spontaneously mentioned in their reports that they had
been prelucid or lucid.
In a more recent study, Ogilvie et al. (1983) remedied several of these
methodological problems and arrived at a conclusion regarding alpha activity and
lucidity unsupportive of their earlier work. They studied eight lucid dreamers for
I to 4 nights in a sleep lab. The subjects were awakened from REM following
spontaneous or cued eye movement signals. The cue buzzer sounded after 15
minutes of REM during periods of either high or low alpha activity. The subjects
were to signal at the cue and again 30 seconds later if in a lucid dream. Reports
were elicited 30 to 60 seconds after cued or spontaneous signals and rated for
lucidity. Contrary to their earlier findings, the low-alpha condition yielded
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2

140
STEFFIEN LABERGE
slightly more lucid dreams than the high-alpha condition; however, this dif-
ference was not statistically significant. Addressing this same issue, LaBerge
(1980b) performed a Fourier analysis on EEG activity (C3/A1) for a single lucid
dream REM period. Comparison of the spectral profiles for the lucid and non-
lucid portions of the REM period revealed alpha activity for the nonlucid portion
to more closely resemble the waking EEG spectrum than did that in the lucid
portion; however, the two REM samples did not significantly differ.
In summary, it would seem that at this point no reliable association of lucid
dreaming with alpha activity (whether high or low) has been established. A more
productive approach to the question of EEG in lucid versus nonlucid REM would
probably involve quantifying whole-band EEG frequency spectra from several
electrode placements and comparing signal-verified lucid dreams with nonlucid
controls.
NREM LUCID DREAMS
The findings summarized here indicating that lucid dreams typically occur
in REM sleep should not be misconstrued to suggest that lucid dreams never .
occur in NREM sleep. In fact, in LaBerge, Nagel, Dement and Zarcone's initial
study (1981), lucid dreams were reported by two subjects after spontaneous
awakening from NREM sleep (Stage-2 once; Stage-1, twice). The Stage-2 report
indicated only a brief moment of lucidity before awakening; because the subject
was unable to signal while lucid we cannot be certain that her experience took
place during Stage-2 sleep and not while awakening. As for the NREM Stage-1
reports, although the subject reported signaling before awakening on these occa-
sions, no signals could be verified on her polysomnogram.
LaBerge (1980a) polysomnographically recorded a single trained subject
during sleep onset on 3 consecutive nights. The subject reported a rich history of
hypnagogic imagery. On the experimental nights, she made an effort to retain
consciousness while entering sleep-onset dream states. "Dreaming" was dis-
tinguished from other sleep-onset mentation by the two requirements that (1) the
subject was subjectively asleep (i.e., unaware of the actual position of her body
in bed) and (2) that she hallucinated her body within the dream scene.
1
On each of the experimental sessions (lasting about 2 hours), the subject
repeatedly rested quietly, but vigilantly, and while drifting off to sleep counted to
herself ("One, two, three, ... ") until she began to dream, at which point she
awakened and tape-recorded a mentation report. In 25 of the 42 resultant dream
reports (all of which were very short), the subject claimed to have been lucid.
The following is a typical report: "I am in the grocery store, going down an
aisle; only I am standing on a cart. It is whizzing real fast. As I go by the Coke
and Pepsi bottles, I realize that I am dreaming. I think to look at my hands, but
they won't move up to eye level" (p. 101). Note the absence of voluntary control
over the body image, a very unusual condition for REM lucid dreams. Visual
PSYLIV. ..
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CJA-RDP96-00789R0031QQ140A01-2all of these "dreamlets" to have
inspection
occurred during Stage-1 sleep, with slow eye movements.
This pilot study makes it clear that the observed frequency of NREM lucid
dreaming will depend on experimental demand characteristics. The same point is
made by Dane (1983), who found a high proportion of lucid dream reports
deriving from NREM under conditions of heightened attention during sleep onset
and explicit instructions that "dreams occur during NREM as well as during
REM sleep" (p. 249). A comparative study of REM versus NREM (and "wak-
ing") lucid dreaming ciearly needs to be done.
PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS DURING REM SLEEP
One of the major obstacles impeding the development of human con-
sciousness as a topic of rigorous scientific study has been that the only direct
account available of the private events occurring in a person's mind is his or her
own subjective report. Subjective reports, unfortunately, are not subject to objec-
tive verification-at least not directly. To make matters worse, of all the "bad
witnesses"-as Heraclitus called the senses-"introspection" appears to be the
least reliable. Introspection is not really even a sense: We do not simply "look
and see" the contents of our minds; what we "see" there is largely dependent on
what we expect to see based on our theories of ourselves. These theories tend to
portray ourselves as more consistent and rational than we really are (Nisbett &
Wilson, 1977). Given that the only witness is of uncertain reliability, what we
need in order to study consciousness more objectively is a means of corroborat-
ing the testimony of the "I-witness," and this is precisely the role of the
psychophysiological approach. A key element in this new strategy is the idea of
making full use of the subject's cooperativeness and intelligence. A frequent
practice in experimental psychology requires the deception of subjects about the
true nature of the experiment. This has the advantage of minimizing the effect the
subject's knowledge might have on the experiment. But this particular meth-
odology is inappropriate when the object of the investigation is the subject's own
consciousness. In this case, a more suitable approach is one in which the di-
chotomous subject/experimenter relationship is modified: Perhaps subjects
should be regarded as-to borrow an anthropological term-participant-
observers.
What about the problem of the uncertain reliability of introspective accounts
of consciousness? There are two strategies likely to increase our confidence in
the reliability of subjective reports: In the first place, it helps to study highly
trained (and lucid) subjects who are skillful reporters. Second, we can make use
of the fact that the convergent agreement of physiological measures and subjec-
tive reports provides a degree of validation to the latter (Stoyva and Kamiya,
1968).
The fact that lucid dreamers can remember to perform predetermined ac-
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2

VILI TILIN LABERGE
tions and signal to the laboratoApproved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140004-22ginal dream. One might say that the
to dream research: Lucid dreamers, he proposed,
approach
could carry out diverse dream experiments marking the exact time of particular dream
events, allowing the derivation of precise psychophysiological correlations and the
methodical testing of hypotheses. (LaBerge, Nagel, Dement, & Zarcone, 1981, p.
727)
This strategy has been put into practice by the Stanford group in a number of
studies summarized by LaBerge (1985a).
LaBerge first of all pointed out that the data reported in LaBerge, Nagel,
Dement, and Zarcone (1981) and LaBerge, Nagel, Taylor, Dement, and Zarcone
(1981) indicate that there is a very direct and reliable relationship between gaze
shifts reported in lucid dreams and the direction of polygraphically recorded eye
movements. It should be noted that the results obtained for lucid dreams (see also
Dane, 1984; Fenwick et al., 1984; Hearne, 1978; Ogilvie, et al., 1982) are much
stronger than the generally weak correlations demonstrated by earlier investiga-
tions testing the notion that the dreamer's eyes move with his or her hallucinated
dream gaze, which had to rely on the chance occurrence of a highly recognizable
eye movement pattern that was readily matchable to the subject's reported dream
activity (e.g., Roffwarg, Dement, Muzio, & Fisher, 1962). This would seem to
illustrate the methodological advantage of using lucid dreamers.
LaBerge (1980a, 1985a) reports having straightforwardly approached the
problem of dream time by asking subjects to estimate various intervals of time
during their lucid dreams. Signals marking the beginning and end of the subjec-
tive intervals allowed comparison with objective time. In all cases, LaBerge
reported, time estimates during the lucid dreams were very close to the actual
time between signals.
In another study, LaBerge and Dement (1982a) demonstrated the possibility
of voluntary control of respiration during lucid dreaming. They recorded three
lucid dreamers who were asked to either breathe rapidly or to hold their breaths
(in their lucid dreams), marking the invertal of altered respiration with eye
movement signals. The subjects reported successfully carrying out the agreed-
upon tasks a total of nine times, and in every case, a judge was able to correctly
predict on the basis of the polygraph recordings which of the two patterns had
been executed (p < . 002).
Evidence of voluntary control of other muscle groups during REM was
found by LaBerge, Nagel, Dement, and Zarcone (1981) while testing a variety of
lucidity signals. They observed that a sequence of left and right dream-fist
clenches resulted in a corresponding sequence of left and right forearm twitches
as measured by EMG. However, the amplitude of the twitches bore an unreliable
relationship to the subjective intensity of the dreamed action. Because all skeletal
muscle groups except those that govern eye movements and breathing suffer a
profound loss of tone during REM sleep, it is to be expected that most muscular
responses to dreamed movements will be feeble. Nonetheless, these responses
PSYCHUI
dreamer's body responds to dreamed actions with movements that are but shad-
ows of the originals.
Further support of this notion comes from a study (Fenwick et al., 1984) of
a single highly proficient lucid dreamer (Alan Worsley, who had also been
Hearne's [1978] subject) who carried out a variety of dreamed muscular move-
ments while being polygraphically recorded. In one experiment, Worsley ex-
ecuted movements during lucid dreams involving finger, forearm, and shoulder
muscle groups (flexors) while EMG was recorded from each area. The results
were consistent: The axial muscles showed no measurable EMG activity, where-
as the forearm EMG "consistently showed lower amplitude and shorter bursts"
compared to the finger EMG. A similar experiment with the lower limbs yielded
similar results. In addition to the finding that REM atonia shows a central-
peripheral gradient with motor inhibition least for the most distal muscles, Fen-
wick et al. reported that similar experiments comparing EMG response to
dreamed arm and leg flexions and extensions suggested that flexors were less
inhibited than extensors. In addition to EMG, an accelerometer was utilized in
several experiments demonstrating that Worsley was able to produce minor
movements of his fingers, toes, and feet during REM, though not of his legs.
Fenwick et al. also presented the results of a single experiment suggesting that
dream speech may be initiated in the expiratory phase of respiration just as it
usually does during waking. In still another experiment they demonstrated the
voluntary production of smooth pursuit eye movements during a lucid dream.
LaBerge (1986) has carried out related experiments in which two subjects track-
ed the tip of their fingers moving slowly left to right during four conditions: (1)
awake, eyes open; (2) awake, eyes closed mental imagery; (3) lucid dreaming;
and (4) imagination ("dream eyes closed") during lucid dreaming. The subjects
showed saccadic eye movements in the two imagination conditions (2 and 4),
and smooth-tracking eye movements during dreamed or actual tracking (condi-
tions 1 and 3).
Fenwick et al. also showed that Worsley was able to perceive and respond
to environmental stimuli (electrical shocks) without awakening from his lucid
dream. This result raises a theoretical issue: If we take perception of the external
world to be the essential criterion for wakefulness (LaBerge, Nagel, Dement, &
Zarcone, 1981), then it would seem that Worsley must have been at least par-
tially awake. On the other hand, when environmental stimuli are incorporated
into dreams without producing any subjective or physiological indications of
arousal, it appears reasonable to speak of the perception as having occurred
during sleep. Furthermore, it may be possible, as LaBerge (1980c) has sug-
gested, for one sense to remain functional and "awake" while others fall
"asleep." As long as we continue to consider wakefulness and sleep as a simple
dichotomy, we will lie in a Procrustian bed that is bound at times to be most
uncomfortable. There must be degrees of being awake just as there are degrees of
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2

150
JILITILIN LABERGE
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
being asleep (i.e., the conventional sleep stages). Before finding our way out of
this muddle, we will probably need to characterize a wider variety of states of
consciousness than those few currently distinguished (e.g., dreaming, sleeping.
waking, and so on).
Because many researchers have reported cognitive task dependency of later-
alization of EEG alpha activity in the waking state, LaBerge undertook a pilot
study to determine whether similar relationships would hold in the lucid dream
state. The two tasks selected for comparison were dreamed singing and dreamed
counting, activities expected to result in relatively greater engagement of the
subjects' left and right cerebral hemispheres, respectively.
Integrated alpha band EEG activity was derived from electrodes placed over
right and left temporal lobes while four subjects sang and counted in their lucid
dreams (marking the beginning and end of each task by eye movement signals).
The results supported the hypothesized lateralization of alpha activity: The right
hemisphere was more active than the left during singing; during counting the
reverse was true. These shifts were similar to those observed during actual
singing and counting (LaBerge & Dement, 1982b).
Sexual activity is a rather commonly reported theme of lucid dreams (Gar-
field, 1979; LaBerge, 1985a). However, at this point, only a single physiological
investigation of lucid dream sex.has been published. LaBerge, Greenleaf, and
Kedzierski (1983) undertook a pilot study to determine the extent to which
subjectively experienced sexual activity during REM lucid dreaming would be
reflected in physiological responses. Their subject was a highly proficient lucid
dreamer who spent the night sleeping in the laboratory. Sixteen channels of
physiological data, including EEG, EOG, EMG, respiration, skin conductance
level (SCL), heart rate, vaginal EMG (VEMG), and vaginal pulse amplitude
(VPA), were recorded. The experimental protocol called for the subject to make
specific eye movement signals at the following points: when she realized she was
dreaming (i.e., the onset of the lucid dream); when she began sexual activity (in
the dream); and when she experienced orgasm. The subject reported a lucid
dream in which she carried out the experimental task exactly as agreed upon.
Data analysis revealed a significant correspondence between her subjective re-
port and all but one of the autonomic measures; during the 15-second orgasm
epoch, mean levels for VEMG activity, VPA, SCL, and respiration rate reached
their highest values and were significantly elevated compared to means for other
REM epochs. Contrary to expectation, heart rate increased only slightly and
nonsignificantly.
LaBerge (1985a) reports replicating this experiment using two male sub-
jects. In both cases, respiration showed striking increases in rate. Again, there
were no significant elevations of heart rate. Interestingly, although both subjects
reported vividly realistic orgasms in their lucid dreams, neither actually ejacu-
lated, in contrast to the "wet dreams" commonly experienced by adolescent
PSYCHOPHYSI
males. The mechanism of nocturnal emissions is probably local reflex irritability
because wet dreams do not necessarily involve dream content of a sexual nature,
again in contrast to lucid dream orgasms, which are obviously sexual; it appears
we have two extreme cases: "bottom-up" versus "top-down" orgasms.
All of these results support the conclusion that the events we experience
while asleep and dreaming produce effects on our brains (and to a lesser extent,
bodies) remarkably similar to those that would be produced if we were actually to
experience the corresponding events while awake. The reason for this is probably
that the multimodal imagery of the dream is produced by the same brain systems
that produce the equivalent perceptions (cf. Finke, 1980). Perhaps this is why
dreams seem so real: To our brains, dreaming of doing something is equivalent to
actually doing it.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Antrobus, J. S. (1986). Dreaming: Cortical activation and perceptual thresholds. Journal of Mind
and Behavior. 7. 193-212.
Antrobus, J. S., Antrobus, J. S., & Fisher, C. (1965). Discrimination of dreaming and nondreaming
sleep. Archives of General Psychiatry. 12. 395-401.
Aquinas, St. Thomas. (1947) Summa theologica (Vol. 1). New York: Benziger Brothers.
Armitage. R .. Hoffmann, R., Moffitt, A .. & Shearer, J. (1985). Ultradian rhythms in in-
terhemispheric EEG during sleep: A disconfirmation of the GILD hypothesis. Sleep Research.
14, 286.
Aserinsky, E. (1971). Rapid eye movement density and pattern in the sleep of young adults.
Psychophysiology. 8, 361-375.
Berger, R. (1977). Psyclosis: The circularity of experience. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Brylowski. A., LaBerge. S., Levitan, L., Booth, F., & Nelson, W. (1986). H-reflex suppression in
lucid vs. non-lucid REM sleep. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Cohen. D. B. (1979). Sleep and dreaming: Origins, nature and functions. Oxford: Pergamon.
Dane, J. (1984). An empirical evaluation of two techniques for lucid dream induction, Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University.
Fenwick, P., Schatzmann, M., Worsley. A., Adams, J., Stone, S., & Backer, A. (1984). Lucid
dreaming: Correspondence between dreamed and actual events in one subject during REM
sleep. Biological Psychology. 18. 243-252.
Finke, R. A. (1980). Levels of equivalence in imagery and perception. Psychological Review, 87,
113-132.
Foulkes. D. (1974). Review of Schwartz and Lefebvre (1973). Sleep Research, 3. 113.
Garfield, P. (1975). Psychological concomitants of the lucid dream state. Sleep Reserach, 4. 183.
Garfield, P. (1979). Pathway to ecstasy. New York: Holt, Rhinehart, & Winston.
Goodenough. D. R., Shapiro, A., Holden. M., & Steinschriber. L. (1959) A comparison of "dream-
ers" and "nondreamers": Eye movements, electroencephalograms and the recall of dreams.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 59. 295-302.
Green, C. (1968). Lucid dreams. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Hall. J. A. (1977). Clinical uses of dreams. New York: Grune & Stratten.
Hartmann, E. (1975). Dreams and other hallucinations: An approach to the underlying mechanism.
In R. K. Siegal & L. J. West (Eds.), Hallucinations (pp. 71-79). New York: Wiley.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2

152
STEPHEN LABERGE
Hearne, K. M. T. (1978). Lucid
published doctoral dissertation, University of Liverpool.
LaBerge, S. (1979). Lucid dreaming: Some personal observations. Sleep Research, 8, 158.
LaBerge, S. (1980a). Lucid dreaming: An exploratory study of consciousness during sleep. (Doctoral
dissertation, Stanford University, 1980). (University Microfilms International No. 80-24,691).
LaBerge, S. (1980b). Lucid dreaming as a learnable skill: A case study. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
51. 1039-1042.
LaBerge, S. (1980c). Induction of lucid dreams. Sleep Research, 9, 138.
LaBerge, S. (1985a). Lucid dreaming. Los Angeles: J. P. Tarcher.
LaBerge, S. (1985b). The temporal distribution of lucid dreams. Sleep Research, 14, 113.
LaBerge, S. (1986). Unpublished data.
LaBerge, S. (1987). Unpublished data.
LaBerge, S. & Dement, W. C. (1982a). Voluntary control of respiration during REM sleep. Sleep
Research, 11, 107.
LaBerge, S., & Dement, W. C. (19826). Lateralization of alpha-activity for dreamed singing and
counting during REM sleep. Psychophysiology, 19, 331-332.
LaBerge, S., Greenleaf, W., & Kedzierski, B. (1983). Physiological responses to dreamed sexual
activity during lucid REM sleep. Psychophysiology. 20, 454-455.
LaBerge, S., Nagel, L., Dement, W. C., & Zarcone, V., Jr. (1981). Lucid dreaming verified by
volitional communication during REM sleep. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 727-732.
LaBerge, S., Nagel, L., Taylor, W., Dement, W. C., & Zarcone, V., Jr. (1981). Psycho-
physiological correlates of the initiation of lucid dreaming. Sleep Research, 10, 149.
LaBerge, S., Levitan, L. X., & Dement, W. C. (1986). Psychophysiology of lucid dreams. Un-
published data.
LaBerge, S., Levitan, L., & Dement, W. C. (1986). Lucid dreaming: Physiological correlates of
consciousness during REM sleep. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 7, 251-258.
Malcolm, N. (1959). Dreaming. London: Routledge.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental
processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
Ogilvie, R., Hunt, H., Sawicki, C., & McGowan, K. (1978). Searching for lucid dreams. Sleep
Research, 7, 165.
Ogilvie, R., Hunt, H., Tyson, P. D., Lucescu, M. L., & Jeakins, D. B. (1982). Lucid dreaming and
alpha activity: A preliminary report. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 55, 795-808.
Ogilvie, R., Hunt, H., Kushniruk, A., & Newman, J. (1983). Lucid dreams and the arousal
continuum. Sleep Research, 12, 182.
Pivik, R. T. (1986). Sleep: Physiology and psychophysiology. In M. G. H. Coles, E. Donchin, & S.
Porges (Eds.), Psychophysiology: Systems, processes, and applications (pp. 378-406).
Guilford Press: New York.
Rechtschaffen, A. (1978). The single-mindedness and isolation of dreams. Sleep. 1, 97-109.
Rechtschaffen, A., & Kales, A. (Ed.). (1968). A manual of standardized terminology, techniques
and scoring system for sleep stages of human subjects. Bethesda: HEW Neurological Informa-
tion Network.
Roffwarg, E., Dement, W. C., Muzio, J., & Fisher, C. (1962). Dream imagery: Relationship to
rapid eye movements of sleep. Archives of General Psychiatry, 7, 235-238.
Schwartz, B. A., & Lefebvre, A. (1973). Contacts veille/P.M.O. Il. Les P.M.O. morcelees
[Conjunction of waking and REM sleep. Il. Fragmented REM periods. ]. Revue d' Electroen-
cephalographie et de Neurophysiologie Clinique, 3, 165-176.
Stoyva, J. & Kamiya, J. (1968). Electrophysiological studies of dreaming as the prototype of a new
strategy in the study of consciousness. Psychological Review, 75, 192-205.
PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY OF LUCID UNEAVAITU
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : C A-RDP96-00789R003100140004-2ing: A review of the literature. Psycholog-
Turt. C. 7.
ical Bulletin, 64, 81-91.
Van Eeden, F. (1913). A study of dreams. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 26,
431-461.
Williams, R., Karacan, I., & Jursch, C. (1974). Electroencephalography (EEG) of Human Sleep:
Clinical Applications. New York: Wiley.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2