| Title |
Smooth tracking of visual targets distinguishes lucid REM sleep dreaming and waking perception from imagination
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Communications, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1038/s41467-018-05547-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephen LaBerge, Benjamin Baird, Philip G. Zimbardo |
| Abstract |
Humans are typically unable to engage in sustained smooth pursuit for imagined objects. However, it is unknown to what extent smooth tracking occurs for visual imagery during REM sleep dreaming. Here we examine smooth pursuit eye movements during tracking of a slow-moving visual target during lucid dreams in REM sleep. Highly similar smooth pursuit tracking was observed during both waking perception and lucid REM sleep dreaming, in contrast to the characteristically saccadic tracking observed during visuomotor imagination. Our findings suggest that, in this respect, the visual imagery that occurs during REM sleep is more similar to perception than imagination. The data also show that the neural circuitry of smooth pursuit can be driven by a visual percept in the absence of retinal stimulation and that specific voluntary shifts in the direction of experienced gaze within REM sleep dreams are accompanied by corresponding rotations of the physical eyes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 231 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 31 | 13% |
| United States | 20 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 8 | 3% |
| Canada | 7 | 3% |
| France | 6 | 3% |
| India | 6 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 5 | 2% |
| Spain | 5 | 2% |
| Mexico | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 21 | 9% |
| Unknown | 119 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 189 | 82% |
| Scientists | 34 | 15% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 2% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 127 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 13% |
| Researcher | 8 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 17% |
| Unknown | 37 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 26 | 20% |
| Psychology | 24 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 5% |
| Engineering | 6 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 13% |
| Unknown | 44 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 181. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 March 2024.
All research outputs
#226,183
of 25,734,859 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#3,262
of 58,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,617
of 342,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#86
of 1,374 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,734,859 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 58,264 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,382 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,374 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.