↓ Skip to main content

An Attempt at Matching Waking Events Into Dream Reports by Independent Judges

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An Attempt at Matching Waking Events Into Dream Reports by Independent Judges
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00465
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jia Xi Wang, He Yong Shen

Abstract

Correlations between memories and dreaming has typically been studied by linking conscious experiences and dream reports, which has illustrated that dreaming reflects waking life events, thoughts, and emotions. As some research suggests that sleep has a function of memory consolidation, and dreams reflect this, researching this relationship further may uncover more useful insights. However, most related research has been conducted using the self-report method which asks participants to judge the relationship between their own conscious experiences and dreams. This method may cause errors when the research purpose is to make comparisons between different groups, because individual differences cannot be balanced out when the results are compared among groups. Based on a knowledge of metaphors and symbols, we developed two operationalized definitions for independent judges to match conscious experiences and dreams, the descriptive incorporation and the metaphorical incorporation, and tested their reliability for the matching purpose. Two independent judges were asked to complete a linking task for 212 paired event-dreams. Results showed almost half dreams can be matched by independent judges, and the independent-judge method could provide similar proportions for the linking task, when compared with the self-report method.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 27%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Lecturer 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 40%
Neuroscience 2 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Unknown 5 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,591,506
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,500
of 30,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,905
of 329,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#506
of 569 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,291 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 329,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 569 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.