Investigating the transfer of physical stimuli to the dreamed body: A comparative study of muscular, vestibular, and haptic stimulation on dream incorporation
Emma Peters, Jakob Poehlmann, Xinlin Wang, Kathrin Fischer, Stefano Maraschin, Gian Jäger, Gabriel Bolliger, Ralf Kredel, Simon Maurer, Martin Dresler, Daniel Erlacher
PLoS One October 14, 2026 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0358438 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Within-subject sham-controlled sleep laboratory experiment Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 24 |
| Population | Adults sleeping in a sleep laboratory across one adaptation and three experimental nights |
| Intervention | modality-specific sham stimulation |
| Duration | One adaptation night followed by three consecutive experimental nights |
| Key findings | Bodily sensations and actions appeared in dreams across all conditions, but no stimulation modality (electrical muscular, galvanic vestibular, or haptic vibration) produced significantly more modality-specific dream incorporation than its sham. The authors suggest contextual and expectancy-related influences substantially contribute to bodily dream content under laboratory conditions. |
Abstract
The relationship between the dreamed body and the physical body remains an open question in sleep and dream research. This study examined whether somatosensory stimulation applied during REM sleep modulates the corresponding dream content under controlled conditions. Using a within-subject design, we compared three stimulation modalities-electrical muscular, galvanic vestibular, and haptic vibration-each paired with a modality-specific sham stimulation. Twenty-four participants completed one adaptation night followed by three consecutive experimental nights in the sleep laboratory. Dream reports were collected following rapid eye movement sleep awakenings after stimulation or sham periods, yielding a total of 120 reports. Dream incorporation of bodily sensations and actions was observed across all conditions; however, generalized linear mixed-effects analyses revealed no statistically significant differences between stimulation and sham conditions for any modality. No evidence for reliable modality-specific dream incorporation was observed under rigorous sham-controlled conditions. Rather than demonstrating robust stimulation-specific effects, these findings suggest that contextual and expectancy-related influences substantially contribute to bodily dream content under laboratory conditions while highlighting methodological challenges in dream incorporation research. By combining multiple somatosensory stimulation modalities with rigorous sham-controlled procedures, the present study provides a methodological benchmark for future investigations of dream incorporation and dream engineering.
Citations in the library
Cites 9
- Real-time dialogue between experimenters and dreamers during REM sleep. Current Biology April 12, 2021
- Dreaming of the sleep lab PLoS One October 6, 2021
- Flying dreams stimulated by an immersive virtual reality task. Consciousness and Cognition August 1, 2020
- The effectiveness of lucid dreaming therapy in patients with nightmares: A systematic review. L'Encephale October 1, 2023
- Extending mental practice to sleep: Enhancing motor skills through lucid dreaming Medical Hypotheses March 27, 2023
and 4 more in the library