High dream recall frequency is associated with an increase of both bottom-up and top-down attentional processes

Abstract

Event-related potentials (ERPs) associated with the involuntary orientation of (bottom-up) attention toward an unexpected sound are of larger amplitude in high dream recallers (HR) than in low dream recallers (LR) during passive listening, suggesting different attentional functioning. We measured bottom-up and top-down attentional performance and their cerebral correlates in 18 HR (11 women, age = 22.7 years, dream recall frequency = 5.3 days with a dream recall per week) and 19 LR (10 women, age = 22.3, DRF = 0.2) using EEG and the Competitive Attention Task. Between-group differences were found in ERPs but not in behavior. The results show that HR present larger ERPs to distracting sounds than LR even during active listening, arguing for enhanced bottom-up processing of irrelevant sounds. HR also presented larger contingent negative variation during target expectancy and P3b to target sounds than LR, speaking for an enhanced recruitment of top-down attention. The attentional balance seems preserved in HR since their performances are not altered, but possibly at a higher resource cost. In HR, increased bottom-up processes would favor dream recall through awakening facilitation during sleep and enhanced top-down processes may foster dream recall through increased awareness and/or short-term memory stability of dream content.

Dream recall frequency is associated with attention rather than with working memory abilities

“…Differences between LR and HR have been investigated for several cognitive processes (memory, verbal fluency, visual imagery, creativity, intelligence quotient [IQ], for reviews see Ruby, 2011; Schredl, 2018), but attention has been only scarcely explored to date. Contrary to the present results, a previous study using the Competitive Attention Task (Ruby et al, 2021) did not reveal any significant differences between groups at the behavioural level, while showing differences at the electrophysiological level. Namely, HR exhibited, compared to LR, (1) exacerbated bottom‐up attention with a larger P3a to distractors, and (2) enhanced top‐down facilitatory attention processes, with a larger CNV and target‐P3.…”

“…We therefore here show a difference of cognitive trait between LR and HR, which is coherent with previously identified differences in neurophysiological trait between HR and LR (Eichenlaub, Bertrand, et al, 2014; Eichenlaub, Nicolas, et al, 2014; Ruby et al, 2013, 2021; Vallat et al, 2017, 2020). The analysis of the electrophysiological data collected together with the behavioural data reported here will help to specify which attention‐related components in HR and LR differ in the MEMAT task.…”

“…According to previous results, HR had both higher bottom‐up processing and top‐down control of attention (Eichenlaub, Nicolas, et al, 2014; Ruby et al, 2021). In MEMAT, HR are more sensitive to hard‐to‐ignore distracting sounds.…”

“…During the CAT, participants are asked to detect as quickly and accurately as possible visually‐cued monaural target sounds while in some trials an unexpected binaural task‐irrelevant distracting sound pops up before the target sound. In this context, HR showed a larger contingent negative variation (CNV) before the target and a greater P3a (also called early‐P3) in response to distractors than LR, pointing towards enhanced recruitment of both top‐down and bottom‐up attention processes (Ruby et al, 2021). However, these electrophysiological differences between groups were not associated with significant differences in behavioural performance.…”

High Dream Recall Frequency is Associated with Increased Creativity and Default Mode Network Connectivity

“… 8 , 9 We also recently evidenced an increase of neurophysiological markers of bottom-up and top-down attentional processes in HR during wakefulness. 46 …”