Study sample
Forty-five healthy subjects (7 men, mean age 23.75 ± 3.37 years, range 19-33 years) were recruited from undergraduate university students and personal acquaintances. Prior to the experiment, participants were screened for neurological, psychiatric, and sleep disorders using a semi-structured interview. Furthermore, subjects presenting with severe uncorrected hearing problems, psychoactive or hypnotic substance use, shift work, or incompatible wake-sleep rhythm for other reasons were excluded from the study. All participants were native German speakers. There were no complaints of excessive daytime sleepiness, insomnia, or sleep disturbances as assessed by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS; Johns, 1991; scores ≤10), Regensburg Insomnia Scale (RIS; Crönlein et al., 2013; scores ≤12), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI; Buysse et al., 1988 scores ≤5), respectively. The experiment was conducted in the early evening to increase the probability that participants were able to fall asleep under laboratory conditions. They were instructed to follow a regular sleep schedule and refrain from using alcohol the day before the experiment. We decided against any sleep restriction for the night before the experiment to avoid possible effects of sleep deprivation on behavior, particularly falling asleep too quickly. To minimize potential factors that prevent them from falling asleep, they were additionally instructed to avoid daytime napping and to refrain from caffeine and nicotine approximately four hours prior to the experiment. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Bern (approval no. 2019-04-00003). Written informed consent was obtained, and undergraduate students received course credit for their participation.
Procedure
Participants were screened according to the exclusion criteria and first instructed regarding the assessment of conscious experience and EEG recording three to seven days prior to the experimental session. They further filled out a set of questionnaires to assess general tendencies for unusual experiences as well as sleeping habits/potential sleeping problems. All questionnaires were presented via the browser-based survey platform Qualtrics XM (Qualtrics, 2019). The experimental session consisted of repeated structured questions of conscious experience (Siclari et al., 2013) during approximately 1.5 h of recording. Every item was discussed in detail before the start of the recording to ensure that the participants understood the meaning of each question correctly. Furthermore, three exemplary reports were presented. Participants answered the questions regarding the reports to become familiar with the procedure. In addition to the structured questions, free recall of the most recent mental content was captured at the beginning of each trial. The questioning was conducted using an intercom. The answers were audiotaped and registered in written form by the interviewer. During the experiment, the participants lay on their backs on a comfortable reclining chair. They were informed that they would be allowed to fall asleep. The only task was to keep one’s eyes closed and follow the natural course of one’s mind. Moreover, they were told not to feel forced to report something every time and that a blank report was a favorable outcome as well. A computerized auditory stimulus (500 Hz sine tone lasting 500 ms) indicated the onset of a new trial. Depending on the individual course of the sleep onset process, 5-12 trials were recorded per subject during one session. Because we wanted to maximize the variability of wakefulness levels within participants, the application of a standardized protocol with fixed time intervals was not a suitable method. Therefore, the timing of the questionnaires was manually controlled and adjusted at the individual level by monitoring the wakefulness level in real time using EEG signals. We considered the resulting unbalanced dataset during the data analysis.
Assessment of Conscious Experience
To quantify the momentary degree of reflective awareness during the transition to sleep, a number of different questions was asked during each trial. The majority of the questions used in this study were adapted from pre-existing studies on conscious experience during sleep to best fit the current experimental setup (Gibson et al., 1982; Siclari et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2010). Each questioning lasted for an average of 3.5 min. Initially, the participants were asked to spontaneously report the most recent experience prior to the alarm sound. Depending on the presence or absence of conscious experience, the report was categorized as (1) no conscious experience, (2) conscious experience but no recall, (3) experience reported, or (4) conscious experience but answer refused. In cases with no report, they were asked to indicate their subjective level of wakefulness ((1) alert, (2) relaxed, (3) sleepy, (4) drifting off to sleep, (5) light sleep, (6) deep sleep) and to estimate the duration of the event (in seconds) if conscious experience had been present. The remaining questions aimed to specify the content of the experience and the degree of reflective awareness, and were only asked if participants were willing and able to describe the content of the most recent experience. They were asked to rate the cognitive quality of experience ranging from (1) only thinking to (5) only perceiving, the amount of voluntary control over thoughts/action from (1) fully to (5) not at all, the awareness of the situation, i.e. to what degree they were aware of being in the laboratory from (1) fully to (5) not at all, the amount of reality testing, i.e. to what degree they were aware that the experience was not real from (1) fully to (5) not at all, as well as how real the experiences seemed to them ranging from (1) unreal (5) real. Other ratings, such as the bizarreness of the content or relatedness to memories, did not show any systematic variation with the degree of wakefulness and will not be further discussed in the present paper. Furthermore, only trials in which conscious experience was reported (corresponding to report category 3) were considered in the analysis. A mean score (range 1-5) was built across all ratings for each trial and used as an index of dream-like experiences in the subsequent analysis, with higher scores indicating decreased reflective awareness. Analyses of individual rating items yielded results that were highly redundant with the results obtained based on mean scores across items.
Screening Questionnaires
To test for eventual inter-individual differences in the rating of dream-like experiences during the transition to sleep, we assessed dissociative experiences using the Dissociative Experience Questionnaire German Version (FDS-20; Rodewald et al., 2005), schizotypal tendencies using the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ Klein et al., 1997), hallucinatory proneness using the Launay-Slade Hallucination Scale (LSHS-R; Lincoln et al., 2009), and fantasy proneness using the Creative Experience Questionnaire (CEQ Merckelbach et al., 2001).
EEG Recordings
Multichannel EEG was recorded throughout the experiment using a 64-channel actiCAP snap electrode system (Brain Products GmbH, Gilching, Germany) placed according to the extended 10-20 system (Jasper, 1958) and referenced against FCz. Active electrodes were chosen because of their improved signal quality and lower preparation time compared with passive electrode systems. The signals were sampled at 500 Hz and stored for offline analysis using BrainVision Recorder software and BrainAmp DC amplifiers (BrainProducts GmbH, Gilching, Germany). Impedances were improved to ≤ 10 kΩ. A 4-min resting-state EEG with alternating open and closed eyes was conducted before the start of the experiment to identify eye movements for artifact rejection. No additional EOG or EMG channels were recorded. The level of wakefulness was continuously monitored by visual inspection of the online EEG, as well as online processing and graphically displaying the EEG in the frequency domain. The onset of each experience sampling trial was marked in the EEG using a trigger generated by MATLAB R2018b (Mathworks Inc. Natick, MA, USA) simultaneously with the auditory stimulus, indicating the onset of a new trial.
EEG Data Processing
Preprocessing
EEG data preprocessing was performed using BrainVision Analyzer 2.2 (BrainProducts GmbH, Gilching, Germany) and MATLAB R2018b (Mathworks Inc. Natick, MA, USA). An independent component analysis (ICA) was applied to the resting-state EEG, and components typical of EOG and ECG signals were removed from the data. Remaining segments presenting physiological or technical artifacts were removed manually. Channels containing excessive artifacts were interpolated using spherical spline interpolation. In a further step, EEG was recomputed to the average reference. As the results were expected to be dependent on the interaction of the global brain state with wakefulness levels, the participants’ wakefulness levels were considered for the subsequent clustering of the most dominant microstate topographies. To this end, the vigilance algorithm Leipzig (VIGALL 2.1 plugin for BrainVision Analyzer Hegerl et al., 2014) was applied to the data. The algorithm assigns one out of seven wakefulness levels (0, A1, A2, A3, B1, B23, C) at 1-s intervals based on the power and cortical distribution of the spectral EEG and the occurrence of sleep grapho-elements (i.e., K-complexes and sleep spindles). The required processing steps include manual scoring of K-complexes and sleep spindles, and reduction of the data to a predefined montage. The recommended procedure (Hegerl et al., 2016) was followed except for some minor deviations. The horizontal eye movements (HEOG) were reconstructed based on bipolar derivation of the prefrontal channels F7-F8, and the threshold for detection of slow eye movements (SEM) was set to 100 µV. Additionally, all segments indicating eyes open were removed during the trials by visual inspection. The main reason for this was to improve the accuracy of the classification algorithm. The data were reduced to 25 channels, bandpass filtered between 0.5-70 Hz with an additional notch filter at 50 Hz, and downsampled to 200 Hz prior to the classification. The obtained VIGALL markers were then imported into the original data with all the recorded channels. Note that this procedure only served the purpose of estimating the wakefulness levels. The analysis of the association between wakefulness levels and microstate parameters is beyond the scope of the present study and will be presented elsewhere.
Segmentation and clustering according to VIGALL markers
For each subject, the data were segmented into 1-s intervals and concatenated based on different VIGALL markers. Nine subjects were excluded prior to the analysis because of the absence of a clearly detectable alpha rhythm, which affects the validity of the VIGALL classification. Moreover, because of well-known large inter-individual differences in the occurrence of segments classified as A2 and A3, and the fact that these states hardly differ from each other from a conceptual point of view (parietal vs. frontal alpha), the two states were combined into one condition (A2A3). Additionally, a relatively sparse number of segments were classified as C (occurrence of sleep spindles or K-complexes), which was expected with regard to the nature of the study design. Therefore, we did not consider these segments when clustering the most dominant microstate topographies. The remaining data were filtered between 2 Hz and 20 Hz, and the global field power (GFP) was computed for each sample over time. Topographies at the maxima of GFP were clustered for each wakefulness level separately according to a fixed number of clusters (4-7) using a k-means algorithm. Polarity of the topographies was ignored. To eliminate effects that can be explained by GFP differences alone, the data were normalized. For each wakefulness level, the cluster maps were then averaged across subjects using a permutation algorithm that maximized the common variance across subjects (Koenig 1999). Next, mean cluster maps across wakefulness levels were built, which served as template maps for the entire dataset. An in-depth analysis of the relationship between the VIGALL classification and EEG microstate parameters (to appear elsewhere) indicated that a microstate solution with four classes was insufficient to adequately capture the effects of vigilance changes, whereas solutions with six or more classes yielded no additional explanatory power. A solution with five classes was therefore considered adequate for this data and was maintained in the current analysis for comparability among the different analyses. EEG microstate analysis was performed using the Eeglab plugin for resting-state microstate analysis (http://www.thomaskoenig.ch/index.php/software/microstates-in-eeglab).
Microstate feature extraction
To quantify the EEG microstate features in the context of the subjects’ current experience, template maps were fitted back to the EEG segments corresponding to 20 s before each experience report by assigning the cluster topography with the highest spatial correlation to each time point. The time points between two microstates were assigned to the temporally closest microstate class. For each segment, the occurrence (i.e., mean number of times that each microstate occurred per second), duration (i.e., mean duration in ms per occurrence of each microstate class), contribution (i.e., percentage of time covered by each microstate), and mean GFP (i.e., global signal strength) of each microstate class were estimated. These parameters are typically used to characterize the spatiotemporal properties of EEG microstates. Only segments consisting of at least 10 s of clean EEG data within 20 s before the experience report were considered for the microstate feature extraction to ensure a reasonable signal-to-noise ratio. An analysis window of 20 s was selected, as this number equals the median of the self-reported duration of the experiences present in this study and was the best available estimator of length of experience, even though it is known that the perception of time is not always accurate at the transition to sleep (Goupil & Bekinschtein, 2012).
EEG Source Localization
For the interpretability of microstates in terms of the functional significance of the involved brain networks, we computed the sources contributing to each of the mean microstate topographies using low-resolution brain electric tomography (LORETA Pascual-Marqui et al., 1994). The lead field for the inverse solution was calculated for 65 electrode positions and the average brain of the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) in a grey matter-constrained head model using the LSMAC head model with 6000 distributed solution points. Standardization over time was applied to each solution point to eliminate activation biases (Bréchet et al., 2019, 2020; Michel & Brunet, 2019). The estimated current densities of each participant were averaged across all time points that were attributed to a given microstate in each condition, and the averaged local source maxima are reported in the results.
Statistical Analysis
To test for differences in the predicted values of the spatiotemporal microstate parameters as a function of reported experience and microstate class, we performed separate linear mixed models with the dependent variables of duration, occurrence, contribution, and mean GFP. We analyzed the data using RStudio 1.3 (RStudio, Inc., 2020), fitting all models with the package lme4 (Bates et al., 2014). The two fixed factors, rating score (centered mean score) and microstate class (factor), as well as the interaction term, were included in the analysis. A by-subject random intercept was added to represent between-person variability and account for the unbalanced data structure (1|subject) (Bates et al., 2014). Type III tests of fixed effects were reported for omnibus tests. Our main interest was the evaluation of potential main effects of rating score, as well as the cross-level interaction effect of rating score × microstate class. To quantify and visualize significant effects, we estimated and compared the linear trends of the mean rating score depending on the different microstate classes using the ‘emtrends’ function included in the RStudio package ‘emmeans’ (version 1.6.2) and tested these trends against zero using conditional t-tests. Moreover, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between all scales, as well as between all screening questionnaires and the subject-mean of experience ratings to assess the strength of association between the general tendency for unusual experiences and experiences reported during the experiment.