Effects of task modality, length and complexity on time for activities in lucid dreams

Introduction: Nocturnal dreams can be considered as a kind of simulation of the real world on a higher cognitive level (Erlacher & Schredl, 2008). Within lucid dreams, the dreamer is aware of the dream state and thus able to control the ongoing dream content. Previous studies could demonstrate that it is possible to practice motor tasks during lucid dreams and doing so improved performance while awake (Erlacher & Schredl, 2010). Even though lucid dream practice might be a promising kind of cognitive rehearsal in sports, little is known about the characteristics of actions in lucid dreams. The purpose of the present study was to explore the relationship between time in dreams and wakefulness because in an earlier study (Erlacher & Schredl, 2004) we found that performing squads took lucid dreamers 44.5 % more time than in the waking state while for counting the same participants showed no differences between dreaming and wakefulness. To find out if the task modality, the task length or the task complexity require longer times in lucid dreams than in wakefulness three experiments were conducted. Methods: In the first experiment five proficient lucid dreamers spent two to three non-consecutive nights in the sleep laboratory with polysomnographic recording to control for REM sleep and determine eye signals. Participants counted from 1-10, 1-20 and 1-30 in wakefulness and in their lucid dreams. While dreaming they marked onset of lucidity as well as beginning and end of the counting task with a Left-Right-Left-Right eye movement and reported their dreams after being awakened. The same procedure was used for the second experiment with seven lucid dreamers except that they had to walk 10, 20 or 30 steps. In the third experiment nine participants performed an exercise involving gymnastics elements such as various jumps and a roll. To control for length of the task the gymnastic exercise in the waking state lasted about the same time as walking 10 steps. Results: As a general result we found – as in the study before – that performing a task in the lucid dream requires more time than in wakefulness. This tendency was found for all three tasks. However, there was no difference for the task modality (counting vs. motor task). Also the relative time for the different lengths of the tasks showed no difference. And finally, the more complex motor task (gymnastic routine) did not require more time in lucid dreams than the simple motor task. Discussion/Conclusion: The results showed that there is a robust effect of time in lucid dreams compared to wakefulness. The three experiments could not explain that those differences are caused by task modality, task length or task complexity. Therefore further possible candidates needs to be investigated e.g. experience in lucid dreaming or psychological variables. References: Erlacher, D. & Schredl, M. (2010). Practicing a motor task in a lucid dream enhances subsequent performance: A pilot study. The Sport Psychologist, 24(2), 157-167. Erlacher, D. & Schredl, M. (2008). Do REM (lucid) dreamed and executed actions share the same neural substrate? International Journal of Dream Research, 1(1), 7-13. Erlacher, D. & Schredl, M. (2004). Time required for motor activity in lucid dreams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99, 1239-1242.

Dynamics of vessel wall changes following the implantation of the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: a multi-imaging modality study at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months

Aims: To assess observations with multimodality imaging of the Absorb bioresorbable everolimus-eluting vascular scaffold performed in two consecutive cohorts of patients who were serially investigated either at 6 and 24 months or at 12 and 36 months. Methods and results: In the ABSORB multicentre single-arm trial, 45 patients (cohort B1) and 56 patients (cohort B2) underwent serial invasive imaging, specifically quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), radiofrequency backscattering (IVUS-VH) and optical coherence tomography (OCT). Between one and three years, late luminal loss remained unchanged (6 months: 0.19 mm, 1 year: 0.27 mm, 2 years: 0.27 mm, 3 years: 0.29 mm) and the in-segment angiographic restenosis rate for the entire cohort B (n=101) at three years was 6%. On IVUS, mean lumen, scaffold, plaque and vessel area showed enlargement up to two years. Mean lumen and scaffold area remained stable between two and three years whereas significant reduction in plaque behind the struts occurred with a trend toward adaptive restrictive remodelling of EEM. Hyperechogenicity of the vessel wall, a surrogate of the bioresorption process, decreased from 23.1% to 10.4% with a reduction of radiofrequency backscattering for dense calcium and necrotic core. At three years, the count of strut cores detected on OCT increased significantly, probably reflecting the dismantling of the scaffold; 98% of struts were covered. In the entire cohort B (n=101), the three-year major adverse cardiac event rate was 10.0% without any scaffold thrombosis. Conclusions: The current investigation demonstrated the dynamics of vessel wall changes after implantation of a bioresorbable scaffold, resulting at three years in stable luminal dimensions, a low restenosis rate and a low clinical major adverse cardiac events rate.