4.6 Article

The sensory construction of dreams and nightmare frequency in congenitally blind and late blind individuals

Journal

SLEEP MEDICINE
Volume 15, Issue 5, Pages 586-595

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2013.12.008

Keywords

Blindness; Dreaming; Quality of sleep; Visual consciousness; Imagery; Nightmares

Funding

  1. Lundbeck Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: We aimed to assess dream content in groups of congenitally blind (CB), late blind (LB), and age-and sex-matched sighted control (SC) participants. Methods: We conducted an observational study of 11 CB, 14 LB, and 25 SC participants and collected dream reports over a 4-week period. Every morning participants filled in a questionnaire related to the sensory construction of the dream, its emotional and thematic content, and the possible occurrence of nightmares. We also assessed participants' ability of visual imagery during waking cognition, sleep quality, and depression and anxiety levels. Results: All blind participants had fewer visual dream impressions compared to SC participants. In LB participants, duration of blindness was negatively correlated with duration, clarity, and color content of visual dream impressions. CB participants reported more auditory, tactile, gustatory, and olfactory dream components compared to SC participants. In contrast, LB participants only reported more tactile dream impressions. Blind and SC participants did not differ with respect to emotional and thematic dream content. However, CB participants reported more aggressive interactions and more nightmares compared to the other two groups. Conclusions: Our data show that blindness considerably alters the sensory composition of dreams and that onset and duration of blindness plays an important role. The increased occurrence of nightmares in CB participants may be related to a higher number of threatening experiences in daily life in this group. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available