Lucid Dreaming Therapy and Its Potential to Reduce Nightmares

 In November, our class had the opportunity to explore the topic of lucid dreaming through a seminar presented by Dr. Torres Platas. Her presentation focused on how researchers have been able to study the dreaming brain by communicating with lucid dreamers while they sleep. This finding shows that consciousness does not fully disappear during dreaming. Although her talk did not cover nightmare treatment, the study she explained helps us understand why lucid dreaming has gained attention in clinical psychology. If people can recognize that they are dreaming and maintain some control during the experience, then this awareness could be used to change or interrupt a nightmare. The idea has motivated researchers to explore lucid dreaming as a possible strategy to help individuals who suffer from recurring or distressing dreams. Recent studies build on this foundation and offer insight into how lucid dreams may become a useful approach for reducing the impact of chronic nightmares. 

  The article “My Dream, My Rules: Can Lucid Dreaming Treat Nightmares?” explains that lucid dreaming may help treat nightmares because the dreamer gains awareness that the dream is not real and can sometimes guide what happens next. This insight changes how the person reacts to the nightmare and reduces the level of fear. The authors describe that many dreamers use this awareness to confront the threat or reshape the scene in a way that feels safer. It is pointed out that lucidity is not always the only factor that reduces nightmares, yet practicing lucid dreaming techniques helps patients build self-control and develop calmer reactions. They also compare lucid dreaming therapy with imagery rehearsal therapy and note that lucid dreaming may be especially helpful for people who experience non-recurrent nightmares or who want to reduce the intensity of their dreams. The therapy can be learned in a short period and may create benefits quickly. When patients realize they can influence their dreams, their confidence grows and nightmare frequency often decreases on its own. Even when lucidity does not occur, the induction exercises help patients think more critically about their dreams, which can make the nightmare feel less overwhelming.

  Another article that examines how lucid dreaming can help with nightmares is “Cognitions in Sleep: Lucid Dreaming as an Intervention for Nightmares in Patients With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder”. This work explains that nightmares are a persistent symptom of PTSD and often disrupt sleep, which is why the American Academy of Sleep Medicine includes lucid dreaming therapy as one of the cognitive behavioral options for treatment. Lucid dreaming is defined as the awareness of dreaming and the ability to guide the dream. This skill gives patients a way to face the nightmare while it is happening rather than only after waking up. The researchers found that when veteran patients learned to increase control over their dreams, their nightmare-related distress decreased and their sleep quality improved. Some studies also reported a drop in PTSD symptoms once patients felt more capable of influencing the dream. Lucid dreaming therapy offers an advantage over traditional methods because it allows a direct response to the nightmare inside the dream. It may also support emotional stability by reducing anxiety and helping patients feel safer during sleep. Although more research is needed, the article presents lucid dreaming therapy as a promising approach for people whose nightmares are linked to trauma.

  Research on lucid dreaming shows that the mind can respond to fear in ways we do not expect. Both articles reveal that becoming aware inside a dream can reduce distress and help people feel more in control during nightmares. While there is still more to learn, these findings point to lucid dreaming as a useful tool for people who want a new way to manage repeated or intense nightmares. 

Reference:

de Macêdo, T.C. F., Ferreira, G.H., de Almodes, K. M, Kirov, R., & Mota-Rolim, S. A (2019). My Dream, My Rules: Can Lucid Dreaming  Treat Nightmares? Frontier in psychology, 10, 2618.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02618

Holzinger, B., Saletu, B., & Klösch, G. (2020). Cognitions in Sleep: Lucid Dreaming as an Intervention for Nightmares in Patients With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Frontier in psychology, 11, 1826. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01826

Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep: The Creative Potential of Lucid Dreaming

    Lucid dreaming is commonly understood as the ability to recognize that one is dreaming while one is asleep (Baird et al., 2019). Despite extensive evidence dating back decades, studies on lucid dreaming often face skepticism from outsiders. Researchers like Dr. Torres-Plates, however, are attempting to dismantle that skepticism and investigate the potential that lucid dreaming offers. 

    This past semester, Loyola University Chicago’s Neuroscience Seminar 300 class had the pleasure of hearing from Dr. Torres-Platas, a neuroscience researcher at Northwestern University. In her presentation, Dr. Torres-Platas explained how her team, taking inspiration from Konkoly et al.’s (2021) study, is in the process of developing a communication channel between people who are in a lucid dream state and those who are conscious. In Konkoly et al.’s (2021) study, lucid dreamers responded to questions from the researchers using facial eye movements and facial muscle contractions. The questions included discriminating between simple mathematical equations and answering yes-or-no questions. Although there was frequently a lack of response in the trials, which Dr. Torres-Platas maintains is a common problem for sleep researchers like her, Konkoly and colleagues were still able to successfully create a dialogue between themselves and the lucid dreamers. Dr. Torres-Platas plans to expand on this research, exploring how these communication channels can be utilized to answer questions regarding the nature and limits of consciousness.

    Dr. Torres-Platas and Konkoly et al.’s research led me down a rabbit hole—wanting to know more about the boundaries of lucid dreaming. Gintare Štuikytė and Tadas Stumbrys are two researchers at Vilnius University who are also exploring the capabilities of people experiencing a lucid dream. Their article, titled “Lucid Dream Poetry: An Exploration Into Creative Potentials of the Lucid Dream State,” details an experiment in which lucid dreamers were asked to draft a Haiku poem while awake and during a lucid dream. Afterwards, the Haiku poems were reviewed by experts in poetry writing, who rated them on a scale between one and six (one meaning least creative and six meaning most creative). As a result, Štuikytė and Sumbrys found that the poems written while the participants were lucid dreaming were rated substantially higher in creativity than those written while the participants were awake. Through this research, Štuikytė and Sumbrys (2025) highlight a practical advantage of the lucid dream state, in which individuals can actually boost their creativity through lucid dreaming (p. S90). 

    Despite these two studies focusing on completely different facets, it is clear that there is a vast potential for credible research into lucid dreaming. If experimenters like Dr. Torres-Platas are able to develop methods that result in a higher response rate from individuals who are lucid dreaming, the boundaries of communication channels can only be transcended, including taking advantage of the enhanced creativity lucid dreaming provides.

References

Baird, B., Mota-Rolim, S. A., & Dresler, M. (2019). The cognitive neuroscience of lucid dreaming. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 100, 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.03.008

Konkoly, K. R., Appel, K., Chabani, E., Mangiaruga, A., Gott, J., Mallett, R., Caughran, B., Witkowski, S., Whitmore, N. W., Mazurek, C. Y., Berent, J. B., Weber, F. D., Türker, B., Leu-Semenescu, S., Maranci, J. B., Pipa, G., Arnulf, I., Oudiette, D., Dresler, M., & Paller, K. A. (2021). Real-time dialogue between experimenters and dreamers during REM sleep. Current biology: CB, 31(7), 1417–1427.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.01.026

Štuikytė, G., & Stumbrys, T. (2025). Lucid dream poetry: An exploration into creative potentials of the lucid dream state. Dreaming, 35(Suppl 1), S82–S93. https://doi.org/10.1037/drm0000328

Expressing Our Thoughts with Our Hands

During the 9th week of the semester, Sara Delmar enlightened us with her research regarding how our hand gestures serve as mechanisms for learning. Hands are said to be not only for touch and tactile sensations, but also for sharing our thoughts and even learning new things. Although our hands are just part of our bodies and are used in everyday activities, such as writing, typing on a computer, and drawing. They are just not used for functional movement, but they're functional mechanisms used in various learning techniques, especially for younger children. In a study by Susan Goldin-Meadow and Susan M. Wagner, "How Our Hands Help Us Learn", they discussed how the various relationships between gesture and speech can improve children's learning abilities. Hand gestures convey meaning discretely, whereas speech relies on verbal expressions to communicate (Meadow & Wagner, 2005). The study consisted of children being given two cups of water with different amounts and asked about the differences between the two cups. One child conveyed their answer using verbal delivery and gestures, mismatch style. This resulted in children who used both verbal and nonverbal gestures being able to have the solution at their fingertips. 

In an article by Brendan Bentley and colleagues, "Using Iconic Hand Gestures in Teaching a Year 8 Science Lesson," they discuss how they compared two different science class teaching styles (Standard Method vs. Scripted Hand Gestures) to get more insight into how the use of hand gestures increases not only their learning, but also their memory retention (Bentley, 2023). They conducted the study by administering a pretest to each group (Experimental vs. Control), each including four short-answer questions, immediately followed by a lecture, one using traditional teaching and the other using gestures to communicate the information. Lastly, each group was administered a posttest. The results of the study indicated that the science class that used hand gestures to deliver and communicate the taught information had higher test scores and better memory retention of the class content. Hand gestures are a mechanism that should be used in day-to-day lectures to help not only young children improve their learning and memory, but also in helping people with everyday tasks perform their functions.

When comparing the article with Sarah Delmar's talk, both explain and reinforce the idea that hand gestures are a helpful technique that can help young students perform their daily functional tasks in the classroom and outside it. This technique can help many people, not just those children,  deliver their thoughts verbally and nonverbally. I found it very interesting that people can improve memory retention simply by using their hands, rather than just verbally. Hand gestures are becoming a functional technique for learning and retaining information. 

References

Bentley, B., Walters, K., & Yates, G. C. R. (2023). Using iconic hand gestures in teaching a year 8 science lesson. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 37(3), 496–506. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4052

Goldinmeadow, S., & Wagner, S. (2005b). How our hands help us learn. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(5), 234–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.006

Genetic Risk and the Decision to Know

                 For our second to last talk of the semester, Dr. Matt Kmiecik came in and presented his research on investigating the influence of specific genetic variants and their role on the risk and phenotypic expression of Parkinson’s Disease (PD). Prior to attending the talk, we were required to read the article, “Genetic Modifiers of Parkinson’s Disease: A Case-Control Study” by Kmiecik, et. al. The article began by introducing Parkinson’s Disease and a few common genetic variants associated with it: LRRK2p.G2019S, GBA1p.N409S, the APOE E4 allele, and Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS). Kmiecik and colleagues sought to test the relationship between these risk factors and PD by studying data from the 23andMe and Fox Insight Genetic Substudy databases of individuals carrying one of either the LRRK2p.G2019S variant or the GBA1p.N409S variant, both, or neither of those genetic risk factors. They also studied the impact of the APOE E4 allele and PRS on PD using the databases. The results of the experiment were provided in the article but were further explained by Dr. Kmiecik during his talk. 

                  The study showed that LRRK2pG2019S carriers had a higher chance of developing PD compared to GBA1p.N409S carries, and individuals carrying both had the highest penetrance level for the disease. Furthermore, LRRK2pG2019S carriers displayed more motor-focused symptoms of PD whereas GBA1p.N409S carries showed greater cognitive decline as a result of PD. Lastly, the APOE E4 allele contributed to overall worse symptoms, especially in cognition, and individuals with a higher PRS demonstrated a higher chance of developing PD alongside lowering the average age of onset. These findings demonstrate the complexity of PD and its variance in terms of progression and phenotype based on its genetic motivators. Reading this article and hearing Dr. Kmiecik’s talk led me to wonder how these findings would translate in healthcare and personalized medicine. However, what interested me most was considering whether or not others would want to or even should know about their risk factors. 

                  The article, “Whether people inform themselves or remain ignorant is due to three factors,” by University College London explores why or how people decide whether they want to know about information related to health, finance, and other important lifestyle considerations. Researchers at University College London conducted 5 experiments, ranging from topics of health, finance, and relationships, to determine what influences individuals to obtain or seek out information. In one of the experiments, participants were asked whether or not they wanted to know about their health, such as information that would tell them about their genetic risk for Alzheimer’s or that would reinforce that their genetics ensure a strong immune system. Following the experiments, the participants were questioned on if they thought the information was important to know, how they thought it would make them feel, and were asked to rate how often they thought about the topic in each experiment. The results showed that people decide to know or obtain information based on expected utility, emotional impact, and personal relevance (how often they think about it). The article concludes by stating that this knowledge and understanding of why people choose to acquire information can be important for policy makers regarding decisions on what information should and needs to be disclosed based on its importance and predictable influence on people’s emotions. 

                  Going back to Dr. Kmiecik’s talk with a better understanding of why people decide to know information, I wonder whether the importance of knowing one’s genetic risk outweighs emotional impact or vice versa in this situation. Knowledge of one’s risk factor may encourage the individual to monitor their health and make changes to their lifestyle choices to attempt to prevent or postpone the onset of PD or the influence of environmental factors on it. However, awareness of one’s risk factor may lead to psychological distress and to further health complications. Additionally, the presence of risk factors doesn’t always guarantee that PD will occur. Overall, Dr. Kmiecik’s research is important for furthering understanding of PD, combating it, and personalizing medicine but comes with concerns on whether or not patients should be made aware of their individual genetic risks for PD. As more and more information is gained on genetic risk factors, the psychology behind why people decide to know or not know becomes crucial in guiding whether this information should be shared and how to present it without causing harm.

References

Kmiecik, M. J., Ippolito, D., McDermott, M., Videnovic, A., Hu, M.T., & Berg, D. (2025). Genetic modifiers of Parkinson's disease: A case-control study. Movement Disorders, 40(2), 123-134. 

University College London. (2021, December 3). Whether people inform themselves or remain ignorant is due to three factors. ScienceDaily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/12/211203081521.htm 

     

The Conversation between Dreamers and Experimenters during REM sleep

         This semester we had the opportunity to listen to Gabriela Torres Platas talk about her research demonstrating how phenomenological and cognitive characteristics of dreaming can be interrogated in real time by understanding the empirical exploration of what dreams are and how they work. She begins her presentation by explaining the definition of REM sleep. REM sleep stands for Rapid Eye Movement sleeping. REM sleep is basically a crucial stage of sleep where it involves around rapid eye movement, vivid dreaming and brain activity that is similar to that of someone being awake, however the person is in a state of atonia, or muscle paralysis. During REM sleep, the dreamer experiences high brainwave activity which is crucial for cognitive functioning by replenishing neurotransmitters which are important for memory, focus and performance.

 

Lucid dreaming however is different from REM sleep because it is a rare phenomenon that occurs during REM sleep which makes it difficult for researchers to capture during lab or research in general. Platas explains that in the overall goal of this research was to study whether  or not participants can communicate during REM sleep by using eye movements to answer math related questions. Researchers used the technique of monitoring sleep using EEG measuring brain waves, EOG tracking eye movements and EMG which measures muscle tone. Targeted Lucidity Reactivation (TLR) training was used to make lucid dreaming more likely to happen. While answering math related questions when the participants responded, researchers collected information regarding working memory and the ability of participants responding from within their dream. Researcher were able to communicate with dreamers using techniques such as eye movement by studying and having a big influence on dream content such as lucid dreaming and REM sleep.

 

The article "The Cognitive Neuroscience of Lucid Dreaming" by Barid et al. explains that while neuroscience has studied the topic of lucid dreaming since the late 1970's, it has gained increasing attention due to its relevance on the conscious mind. Researchers explain that based off past experiments that even thought there is a strong relationship between phasic REM sleep and lucid dreaming, there is also a strong relationship amongst Acetylcholine (Ach) in REM sleep regulation. They also speculate that Galantamine which is a medication used to treat mild to moderate dementia for symptoms associated with Alzheimer's disease, significantly increased sensory vividness which is expected given how intense REM sleep can have on an individual.

Sources:  

Konkoly, Karen, et al. “Real-time dialogue between experimenters and dreamers during rem sleep.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.01.026. 

Baird, Benjamin, et al. “The cognitive neuroscience of Lucid dreaming.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, vol. 100, May 2019, pp. 305–323, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.03.008. 

“Galantamine (Oral Route).” Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/galantamine-oral-route/description/drg-20067458. Accessed 10 Dec. 2025. 

Advancing Care With EEG

Dr. Erika Juarez-Martinez's talk and study Prediction of Behavioral Improvement Through Resting-State Electroencephalography and Clinical Severity in a Randomized Controlled Trial Testing Bumetanide in Autism Spectrum Disorder, investigated why there is significant response variability for medications such as bumetanide among patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Bumetanide has shown promising effects on social communication and sensory symptoms; however, its effectiveness has varied significantly. "Bumetanide is a diuretic drug currently repurposed for ASD treatment and is important for regulating intraneuronal chloride concentration and GABA polarity" (Juarez-Martinez et al., 2025). The study uses electroencephalography (EEG) to record the patient's brain rhythms to see if brain activity can be determined and whether the patient's measurements before treatment predict which children can actually benefit from bumetanide. Prior to the start of the clinical trial, each child/participant, while resting with eyes open and closed, completed an EEG. The results of the study showed that all four EEG markers, including an increase in absolute/relative alpha power and excitation-inhibition balance (fE/I ratio), were statistically consistent positive changes in the bumetanide group compared to the placebo. The study also divided participants into groups based on improvement in RBS-R scores. The RBS-R model utilized baseline EEG and baseline clinical scores predicting improvement levels among medium and high responders with 80-92% accuracy. Finally, the EEG on day 91 did not significantly decrease at day 119, showing that EEG biomarkers can identify which children with ASD would most likely benefit from treatment. 

The additional study I read was  Electroencephalographic biomarkers as predictors of methylphenidate response in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, which examined whether EEG signals recorded before treatment could predict how children with ADHD would respond to methylphenidate (Ritalin). The effectiveness of ADHD medications varies from person to person. Researchers ran EEG tests for all 336 ADHD participants to examine improvements in symptoms after 6 weeks of methylphenidate treatment. The focus was on two biomarkers, TBR (Theta/Beta Ratio) and APF (Alpha Peak Frequency), selected based on prior research. Results found no significant diagnostic difference in TBR or APF between healthy and ADHD children, meaning these EEG markers do not diagnose ADHD. TBR did not predict treatment response among participants, and interestingly, APF produced a meaningful biomarker, predicting treatment response among male adolescents only, showing almost no developmental EEG. Findings suggest that slowed alpha rhythms may reflect maturational delays in males, linked to poorer responses to medication, showing the potential for APF, a possible biomarker leading to new personalized ADHD treatment guided by EEG. 

As we can see, both studies use EEG to address similar challenges in child psychiatry. Why do some children respond to psychiatric medication? Given the variability in the effectiveness of medication, they use EEG to try to predict who would benefit from it. Dr. Juarez-Martinez's study on ASD found that baseline EEG with clinical scores predicted medium and high-level treatment responders with great accuracy. The ADHD study showed pre-treatment EEG, specifically APF, predicted which males would benefit from methylphenidate. Both studies' EEG can be used as a predictive biomarker, indicating who is most likely to benefit from treatment, showing the importance of using neurophysiological data. The ASD study found multiple EEG features associated with the response, while the ADHD study found a predictor for the potential of biomarkers being disorder-specific. EEG's non-invasive method, low cost, and short assessment time make it a promising tool for early prediction. Using tools that rely on neural signal data rather than behavioral symptoms alone, both studies demonstrate how EEG can reveal hidden aspects of brain function differences that clinicians would not otherwise detect, to develop a more personalized and informed approach to treatment.

 Juarez-Martinez, E., Torres-Platas, S. G., Wang, B., Borràs-Comes, J., Wu, W., & Wang, X. (2025). Prediction of behavioral improvement through resting-state electroencephalography and clinical severity in a randomized controlled trial testing bumetanide in autism spectrum disorder. Unpublished manuscript.

Arns, M., Vollebregt, M. A., Palmer, D., Spooner, C., Gordon, E., Karamacoska, D., & Fitzgerald, P. B. (2018).Electroencephalographic biomarkers as predictors of methylphenidate response in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 27(8), 1071–1080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-017-1099-9

Genetic Modifiers and Gene Editing Technology

 

    In the second half of the semester, our class had the pleasure of listening to Matt Kmiecik present his research on the effects of LRRK2, GBA1, APOE E4, and polygenic risk scores on symptoms and risk of Parkinson’s disease. His studies aimed to determine the effects of these genetic modifiers on PD penetrance, risk, and symptoms by examining participants with and without PD who either carry two, none, or one of the genes. To do so, an observational case-control study was performed using data from 23andMe and FIGS databases. Their results showed that by the age of 80, carriers of both LRRK2 and GBA1 had PD 30% of the time, those with only LRRK2 had PD 24% of the time, those with GBA1 only had PD 4% of the time, and non-carriers 2% of the time. These results suggest that the most strongly associated genetic modifier of PD is the LRRK2 gene. However, LRRK2 was associated with the lowest amount of non-motor symptoms of PD. In Kmiecik’s journal article, LRRK2 is described as a gene that encodes for a kinase and GTPase complex that often results in a gain of function in the kinase domain that leads to PD. This happens because it can cause a neurodegenerative process in the substantia nigra. The phenotypic data show that the risk of PD was highest in those carrying the LRRK2 gene and dual carriers.

            After hearing Matt Kmiecik’s presentation and reading his journal article, I wondered if the findings of his research and the knowledge that exists of the genetic modifiers of PD could possibly be used in the future to develop technology that helps to prevent or treat it. Another journal article by Sun-Ku Chung and Seo-Young Lee, Advances in Gene Therapy Techniques to Treat LRRK2 Gene Mutation, examines the LRRK2 gene, its involvement in PD, and how the technology of gene correction (CRISPR/Cas-9-HDR, ZFN, and ABE) can be applied to the LRRK2 gene to potentially decrease the risk of PD. Chung and Lee explain that the LRRK2 gene mutation is particularly prevalent in familial PD and that recent methods of gene replacement therapy, like zinc finger nuclease (ZFN) and adenine base editor (ABE), have been used for LRRK2 genes with high mutation frequencies. ZFN-mediated LRRK2 gene targeting uses 3-6 zinc finger motifs that bind to DNA to allow the restriction enzyme FokI to cleave it. The ZFNs bind on the left and right sides of the desired target sequence before cleaving. Since LRRK2 can induce the degeneration of dopaminergic neurons in the midbrain, cause neurite shortening, and increase apoptotic sensitivity to neurotoxins, its removal alleviates its damaging effects and lessens PD progression. CRISPR/Cas9 gene targeting has also been used to remove the LRRK2 gene. Although not used to correct the mutation, previous studies have investigated the LRRK2 gene using CRISPR technology, concluding that the gene mutation significantly affects the neurite length and branches in dopaminergic neurons. Although CRISPR/Cas9 can be used to correct gene mutations, it also tends to cause off-target effects and leave unintended scars around the target DNA. To fix this, ABE-mediated gene targeting can be used to convert an adenine base into inosine, so that Cas9 only nicks one strand rather than creating a DSB. This reduces the damage that Cas9 can cause to neighboring regions of the target sequence. This article applies the findings from Kmiecik’s research and discusses how they can be used to examine methods of treatment, given what we know about genetic modifiers and gene editing. It concludes that genetic correction therapies are promising as a future method of PD treatment, and that clinical trials investigating their usage are in progress. I believe that research like Kmiecik’s and Chung and Lee’s is crucial to the development of treatments and preventative measures for any disease with genetic modifiers. 

            

References

    Chung, S.-K., & Lee, S.-Y. (2022). Advances in gene therapy techniques to treat LRRK2 gene mutation. Biomolecules, 12(12), 1814. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom12121814 

    Kmiecik, M. (2025). Genetic modifiers of Parkinson’s disease: A case-control study. Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.70176