Dreaming

A new (and very interesting) volume of Dreaming is now out. It includes a discussion between William Domhoff and J. Allan Hobson about the compability between Hobson’s and Mark Solms’ theories of dreaming.

A new (and very interesting) volume of Dreaming is now out.

You can find it here

Refocusing the Neurocognitive Approach to Dreams: A Critique of the Hobson Versus Solms Debate.

by Domhoff, G. William

from Dreaming. 2005 Mar Vol 15(1) 3-20

This article examines the ongoing debate between activation-synthesis theorist J. Allan Hobson and psychoanalytic theorist Mark Solms about the nature of dreaming and dream content. After discussing their neurophysiological disagreements, it argues that they are more similar than different in some important ways, especially in talking about dreams in the same breath as psychosis and in drawing conclusions about dream content on the basis of their neurophysiological assumptions, without any reference to the systematic findings on the issue. Evidence from inside and outside the sleep laboratory on the coherent nature of most dreams is presented to demonstrate that neither theorist is on solid ground in his main assertions. Dreaming is usually a far more realistic and understandable enactment of interests and concerns than the 2 researchers assume. In addition, several of Hobson’s and Solms’s claims concerning the neural basis of dreaming are challenged on the basis of neurophysiological evidence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)

2. In Bed With Mark Solms? What a Nightmare! A Reply to Domhoff (2005).

by Hobson, J. Allan

from Dreaming. 2005 Mar Vol 15(1) 21-29

Bill Domhoff (2005) has challenged the activation synthesis model of dreaming on the basis of a misreading of the neurobiological literature and an individualistic view of dream psychology (see record 2005-02950-001). The author begins his reply by clarifying and emphasizing the formal approach to dream cognitions. Instead of focusing on the individual aspects of dreaming that interest Domhoff, activation synthesis strives to identify and measure the generic differences that characterize all dreams and that are likely to correlate with the neurobiological findings. He then goes on to point out that such formal features as the visuomotor imagery, the emotional intensification, and the defective cognition of dreams do correlate with the cellular and molecular neurobiological data from animal studies and with the brain imaging and lesion data from human studies. Individual differences may also exist but these are not relevant to the main task of sleep psychophysiology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)

3. A Reply to Hobson (2005).

by Domhoff, G. William

from Dreaming. 2005 Mar Vol 15(1) 30-32

J. A. Hobson’s (2005) commentary merely repeats his past theoretical assertions (see record 2005-02950-002). It asks questions that rest on the refuted hypothesis that real dreaming occurs only in REM sleep and that are already answered in the author’s critique. Despite many studies, there is still no evidence that neurophysiological changes during REM are responsible for any unique formal features in dreams. As for the psychological consequences of the neuromodulatory environment during REM, there are no studies. Most important, Hobson overlooks a key point in regard to a new neurocognitive approach to dreams: The many parallels between dreaming and waking cognition raise the intriguing possibility that relatively small changes from waking to sleeping can account for the unique features of dreams, rendering his REM-based speculations irrelevant. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)

4. Dream Imagery and Emotion.

by Davidson, John; Lee-Archer, Sarah; Sanders, Gretchen

from Dreaming. 2005 Mar Vol 15(1) 33-47

The relationship between prominent visual imagery and emotion within dreams was investigated in relation to E. Hartmann’s (1996) contextualizing image (CI) theory and M. Seligman and A. Yellen’s (1987) dual imagery theory. Fifty-nine students recorded dreams over a 2-week period and submitted 115 dreams for analysis. Participants recorded ratings of emotion type and emotion intensity in each scene. Prominent visual images were identified and scored for intensity and detail by independent judges. As hypothesized from Hartmann’s theory, there was a significant positive relationship between CI intensity and emotion intensity in the CI scene, emotion intensity generally peaked in the CI scene, and dreams containing a CI had higher overall ratings of emotion intensity than non-CI dreams. The result for the correlation of detail of prominent imagery with emotion was inconclusive, with a low positive correlation across CI scenes. This raises the possibility that the CI is not a unitary construct. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)

5. Theory of Mind in Dreaming: Awareness of Feelings and Thoughts of Others in Dreams.

by Kahn, David; Hobson, Allan

from Dreaming. 2005 Mar Vol 15(1) 48-57

If the awareness of what others are thinking and the ability to attribute feelings to others characterizes both waking and dreaming consciousness, it suggests that a social species like man has a state-independent need for a theory of mind; that is, an ability to know that others have feelings. The authors performed 2 studies, the first of which consisted of 35 participants who submitted 320 dream reports containing more than 1,200 dream characters and the second consisted of 24 participants who submitted 151 dream reports with 543 dream events. Participants reported that as subjects in their own dreams they were aware that their dream characters had feelings and thoughts about them. This finding shows that awareness of what others are feeling is a robust aspect of consciousness that is maintained despite the changed chemistry and changed activation patterns of the brain’s neuronal connections during dreaming. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)

6. Cognitive Therapy and Dreams.

by Brink, Nicholas E.

from Dreaming. 2005 Mar Vol 15(1) 58-62

In this article I review the book, “Cognitive Therapy and Dreams” (see record 2004-00029-000). I came across this book as I was recently searching psychological abstracts for dreams and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and for hypnosis and CBT. Of the 9 references I found on dreams and CBT, all were in one issue of the Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly (Vol. 16, No. 1). I read a good number of the hypnosis-CBT articles and books, and all were written to integrate CBT into the field of hypnosis. Conversely, the dream articles integrating dream work and CBT were written by a range of people, some with a primary interest in dreams, but some with a more central interest in cognitive therapy. Apparently, a few cognitive-behavioral therapists and researchers have taken some interest in dream work, whereas the hypnosis interest in CBT continues mostly outside the domain of CBT. The collection of the nine articles published in the journal was an impressive enough accomplishment that eight articles of this collection plus four additional articles are now published in this book. The fact that these articles are now in a book may encourage researchers to perform the necessary therapy outcome research to validate the integration of dream work and CBT. The book adds significantly to the journal by drawing a distinction between objectivist approaches (Part II) and constructivist approaches (Part III), a distinction that unifies the articles in this book. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)

7. The Mind at Night: The New Science of How and Why We Dream.

by Schredl, Michael

from Dreaming. 2005 Mar Vol 15(1) 63-67

In this article I review “The Mind at Night: The New Science of How and Why We Dream,” written by Andrea Rock. To begin with this book is an exciting journey through modern dream research. Scientific facts, which are skillfully explained, are complemented by personal accounts of well-known researchers in the field obtained through interviews. The diversity of the themes addressed in the book (e.g., sleep and memory, animal research, imaging studies, dream content analysis, consciousness research, creativity, and lucid dreaming) clearly shows the extensive “detective work” the author has accomplished. The major problem I had–as a researcher in this field–was the structure, or the lack of structure, within the book. Because of the way the book is organized, I decided to structure this review along the following themes: REM sleep, REM sleep and dreaming, biology of dreaming, dream content findings, and the integration of dream research into cognitive neuroscience in general. Despite the lack of structure of the book, Andrea Rock has written a wonderful book about modern dream research that is stimulating for researchers as well as for interested lay persons. I recommend it to everyone who is interested in dream research, the old question of the mind-body relationship, or understanding consciousness in general. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)