A Critical Review of the "Learn-While-You-Sleep" Studies

Charles W. Simon, William H. Emmons

ResearchPublished 1954

An analysis of the experimental design, statistics, methodology, and criteria of ten sleep-learning studies. This paper describes attempts to determine whether one can learn during sleep as well as (from the standpoint of economy of time and effort) comparative data on waking and resting learning.

Topics

Document Details

  • Copyright: RAND Corporation
  • Availability: Web-Only
  • Year: 1954
  • Pages: 36
  • Document Number: P-534

Citation

RAND Style Manual
Simon, Charles W. and William H. Emmons, A Critical Review of the "Learn-While-You-Sleep" Studies, RAND Corporation, P-534, 1954. As of October 10, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P534.html
Chicago Manual of Style
Simon, Charles W. and William H. Emmons, A Critical Review of the "Learn-While-You-Sleep" Studies. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1954. https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P534.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

This publication is part of the RAND paper series. The paper series was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.