Table 1.
Response | Fixed effect | df1 | df2 | F | sig. | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LZC | Sleep stage | 4 | 139 | 32.5 | <0.0001 | |||||
sig. (pairwise comparison) | ||||||||||
EMMs | Estimate | std. err. | CILOWER | CIUPPER | NREM1 | NREM2 | NREM3 | REM | ||
Wake | 0.976 | 0.002 | 0.971 | 0.981 | 0.2068 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.5575 | ||
NREM1 | 0.974 | 0.002 | 0.970 | 0.979 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.4016 | |||
NREM2 | 0.959 | 0.002 | 0.955 | 0.963 | 0.0049 | 0.0065 | ||||
NREM3 | 0.947 | 0.005 | 0.937 | 0.956 | 0.0002 | |||||
REM | 0.981 | 0.008 | 0.965 | 0.997 | ||||||
Response | Fixed effect | df1 | df2 | F | sig. | |||||
ACE | Sleep stage | 4 | 169 | 67.7 | <0.0001 | |||||
sig. (pairwise comparison) | ||||||||||
EMMs | Estimate | std. err. | CILOWER | CIUPPER | NREM1 | NREM2 | NREM3 | REM | ||
Wake | 0.906 | 0.005 | 0.896 | 0.916 | 0.1295 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.0491 | ||
NREM1 | 0.902 | 0.005 | 0.893 | 0.912 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.0228 | |||
NREM2 | 0.873 | 0.004 | 0.864 | 0.883 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | ||||
NREM3 | 0.828 | 0.007 | 0.814 | 0.843 | <0.0001 | |||||
REM | 0.932 | 0.013 | 0.906 | 0.959 | ||||||
Response | Fixed effect | df1 | df2 | F | sig. | |||||
SCE | Sleep stage | 4 | 235 | 37.4 | <0.0001 | |||||
sig. (pairwise comparison) | ||||||||||
EMMs | Estimate | std. err. | CILOWER | CIUPPER | NREM1 | NREM2 | NREM3 | REM | ||
Wake | 0.755 | 0.005 | 0.745 | 0.765 | 0.1163 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.5363 | ||
NREM1 | 0.751 | 0.004 | 0.742 | 0.760 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.3901 | |||
NREM2 | 0.740 | 0.004 | 0.731 | 0.749 | <0.0001 | 0.1111 | ||||
NREM3 | 0.711 | 0.005 | 0.700 | 0.721 | 0.0008 | |||||
REM | 0.765 | 0.016 | 0.734 | 0.796 | ||||||
Response | Fixed effect | df1 | df2 | F | sig. | |||||
LZCa | Experience class | 2 | 40 | 0.516 | 0.6009 | |||||
sig. (pairwise comparison) | ||||||||||
EMMs | Estimate | std. err. | CILOWER | CIUPPER | DEWR | DE | ||||
NE | 0.956 | 0.007 | 0.941 | 0.971 | 0.6889 | 0.6679 | ||||
DEWR | 0.960 | 0.007 | 0.947 | 0.974 | 0.3266 | |||||
DE | 0.953 | 0.004 | 0.945 | 0.960 | ||||||
Response | Fixed effect | df1 | df2 | F | sig. | |||||
ACE | Experience class | 2 | 56 | 0.254 | 0.7766 | |||||
sig. (pairwise comparison) | ||||||||||
EMMs | Estimate | std. err. | CILOWER | CIUPPER | DEWR | DE | ||||
NE | 0.866 | 0.011 | 0.843 | 0.889 | 0.4808 | 0.6535 | ||||
DEWR | 0.856 | 0.010 | 0.835 | 0.877 | 0.6362 | |||||
DE | 0.861 | 0.006 | 0.848 | 0.875 | ||||||
Response | Fixed effect | df1 | df2 | F | sig. | |||||
SCE | Experience class | 2 | 54 | 1.03 | 0.3626 | |||||
sig. (pairwise comparison) | ||||||||||
EMMs | Estimate | std. err. | CILOWER | CIUPPER | DEWR | DE | ||||
NE | 0.725 | 0.008 | 0.708 | 0.741 | 0.6944 | 0.2224 | ||||
DEWR | 0.728 | 0.007 | 0.714 | 0.743 | 0.3764 | |||||
DE | 0.734 | 0.005 | 0.724 | 0.745 | ||||||
Response | Fixed effect | df1 | df2 | F | sig. | Estimate | std. err. | t | CILOWER | CIUPPER |
LZCBACK | Thought-percept | 1 | 34 | 9.96 | 0.0033 | 0.0076 | 0.0024 | 3.16 | 0.0027 | 0.0124 |
LZCFRONT | Thought-percept | 1 | 31 | 4.45 | 0.0432 | 0.0067 | 0.0032 | 2.11 | 0.0002 | 0.0132 |
ACEBACK | Thought-percept | 1 | 32 | 4.27 | 0.0472 | 0.0074 | 0.0036 | 2.07 | 9.89e-5 | 0.0147 |
ACEFRONT | Thought-percept | 1 | 29 | 2.31 | 0.1398 | 0.0055 | 0.0036 | 1.52 | 0.0019 | 0.0128 |
SCEBACK | Thought-percept | 1 | 34 | 0.021 | 0.8864 | 0.0004 | 0.0029 | 0.144 | 0.0055 | 0.0063 |
SCEFRONT | Thought-percept | 1 | 29 | 0.370 | 0.5478 | −0.0016 | 0.0026 | −0.608 | −0.0070 | 0.0038 |
Signal diversity (back transformed from identity link gamma GLMM for 1–SD) as a function of sleep stage, experience class and thought-perceptual rating of dreams.
The CI for the between-participant variance in this model was gigantic, indicating possible problems with model fitting. Excluding/winsorizing the smallest one/two LZC values lead to plausible CI, and gave otherwise similar results, as did a beta GLMM with logit link (Supplementary Material). NE, no experience; DEWR, dream experience without recall; DE, dream experience.