Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

The Lucid Dreaming Project

No description
by

david saunders

on 3 June 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of The Lucid Dreaming Project

Goals of the Ongoing Research
Induction of Lucid Dreaming
PhD Transfer Seminar
Lucid Dreaming: Incidence, induction and associated individual differences

David Saunders

The start of the Journey
Defining the area of interest

Lucid Dream - "A dream where one realises, during the dream that one is dreaming" (LaBerge, 1980)

Tholey (1981) proposed seven criteria:

1. Awareness of the dream state; 2. Awareness of the capacity to make decisions; 3. Awareness of memory functions; 4. Awareness of identity; 5. Awareness of the dream environment; 6. Awareness of the meaning of the dream; 7. Awareness of concentration and focus (the subjective clarity of that state).


1. To perform a meta-analytic review of lucid dreaming prevalence and frequency studies to provide a contemporary estimation of how common both are.
2. To determine the efficacy of a combined Lucid dreaming induction technique, utilising strict methodological controls.
3. To provide physiological evidence, via way of modern sensory technology for the lucid dreams of participants who are successful. This is merely a validity check for individuals reporting having experienced lucid dreams within their dream diaries.
4. To determine if scores in field dependency, locus of control and need for cognition can be used to successfully predict a participants ability to learn to lucid dream.
5. To identify if any changes in the participants perceptual or cognitive orientations are a result of lucid dreaming practise.

How common is it?
Meta Analysis
Quality Effects Meta Analysis

Distinct from Fixed or Random Effect Models

Random Effect model Limitations have been highlighted (Conn and Rantz, 2003; Senn, 2007) particularly in studies of varying methodological quality.


The Quality Effect Model (Doi & Thaleb, 2008, 2009)
Attempts to avoid potential biasing of the pooled estimate by taking consideration of study specific information to formulate situation specific parameters and uses these to adjust for heterogeneity.
Meta- Analysis Findings
Separate QE analysis was conducted on 23 studies for LD prevalence. 16 for LD frequency.
Checks for change in effect over time
Moderation analysis on the variables of:
Researcher/Research Group
Participant Characteristics
Participant Nationality
Current progress
30+ Participants enrolled in Northampton

20+ participants waiting to start the programme in London at the end of next Month.

5 participants report successfully inducing a lucid dream thus far.

One participant has report experiencing around 6. None signal captured.....yet.

Data collection will continue until approx December this year. with two follow-up assessments 6 months and 12 months after each participant has finished their programme.
Moving Forwards
Stage 3 of the Project


Lucid dreaming for motor skill
acquisition.

Jeannrod's Neural Simulation of
Action Theory.

Planning of specific methodology
to begin this summer.

To look at balance, reaction time,
technique, accuracy etc.
1. To perform a meta-analytic review of lucid dreaming prevalence and frequency studies to provide a contemporary estimation of how common both are.

Prevalence - At least one lucid dream in their lifetime
Frequency - One or more per Month
Potential Reasons for Variability in estimates.

Snyder & Gackenbach (1988)
Last comprehensive review on the topic.

Narrative review method has received criticism.


Report overall estimates of lucid dreaming prevalence to be 58% for the population - taken from seven studies:
Rates range from 47% (Blackmore, 1983, 1984) through 100% (Gackenbach et al, 1983).

Frequency estimated at 21%:
rates ranging from 13.5% (Gackenbach, 1978)
through 28.5% (Palmer, 1974).
of definition
Monroe (1967) Sleep Habits questionnaire

" A dream in which you know you are dreaming"

Gackenbach et al (1986) highlights confusion
The Definition Itself
Tart (1988)
"The dreamer has access to all their waking faculties and are able to exert control over aspects of the dream narrative/environment directly"
A lucid Narrative
prevalence rates are reduced to the lower end of the scale (47-55%) for studies where example dream narratives were given alongside a clear definition of lucidity.
Provide your own example!
When applied:
LaBerge (1985) reported a drop in prevalence from 85% to 77%.

Gackenbach et al. (1984) sample from 707 to 344
363 narratives identified as clearly not, or questionably not lucid.
Special interest Groups
Gackenbach., et al (1983)

100% reported Prevalence
Lucid Dreaming Estimates
Prevalence Meta Analysis
Frequency Meta Analysis
Comprised of 12 items

1. Is the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly described?
2. Were relevant details about the sample provided fully? (e.g. representativeness, gender, age)
3. Was the administration of the measurement protocol fully described?
4. Was the sample representative?
5. How was the sample obtained?
6. Was a clear definition of lucidity provided to participants?
7. Was the definition of a lucid dream focused on awareness only or with the addition of control?
8. Was an example of a lucid dream narrative provided to the participants?
9. Were the participants asked to recount a lucid dream experience of their own to demonstrate understanding?
10. Was the question asked of participants worded clearly?
11. Were measures taken to control for confounding factors?
12. Range of response scale.

Quality Checklist
Search Process
Assessing Methodological Quality
QE MA - Researcher/Group
QE MA Nationality
QE MA Characteristic
QE Meta Analysis
QE MA Nationality
Frequency Meta Analysis
QE MA Researcher/Groups
QE MA Characteristics
Overall Conclusions




Prevalence 56% (95%CI = 45% -66%)
Frequency 23% (95%CI = 19% - 27%)
Largest outliers not specifically focused on lucid dreaming
Research Group Moderation Analysis supports no systematic bias
Blackmore studies higher, but - student samples, low weight
Nationality Analysis shows little differences
Characteristic Analysis - Interest/Student groups
Standardisation of methodological procedures to allow for future comparisons.
Some support for Voss' Maturation Hypothesis more samples comprising of teens recommended in future research.
Personality Characteristics and Cognitive Styles
Methodology
Yu (2008)
Stepansky et al (1998)
Alvarado & Zingrone (1999)
Brain Maturation
or methodology.
23%
56%
4. To determine if scores in field dependency, locus of control and need for cognition can be used to successfully predict a participants ability to learn to lucid dream.
5. To identify if any changes in the participants perceptual or cognitive orientations are a result of lucid dreaming practise.
2. To determine the efficacy of a combined Lucid dreaming induction technique, utilising strict methodological controls.
3. To provide physiological evidence, via way of modern sensory technology for the lucid dreams of participants who are successful. This is merely a validity check for individuals reporting having experienced lucid dreams within their dream diaries.

3sec
Full transcript