I’m currently writing an article for Hookmark’s blog about using AI to summarize and assess knowledge resources—papers, books, videos, and more—using an Analytical Notes Template included with Hookmark.

The template is drawn from my second book, Cognitive Productivity with macOS: 7 Principles for Getting Smarter with Knowledge, which explains how to read and learn from information resources more effectively.

In that Hookmark article, I give an example of AI applying the template to one of my own academic paper that is in press:
Beaudoin, L.P. & Guloy, S. (in press). Towards a Somnolent Information-Processing Theory: Understanding the Human Sleep-Onset Control System from an Integrative Design-Oriented Perspective. In J. Dzierzewski, D. Kay & S. J. Aton (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sleep Theories and Models. Cambridge University Press.

I asked ChatGPT to use the Analytical Notes Template to analyze that PDF. I’m transcribing the AI’s output below because it’s directly relevant to mySleepButton®: the Somnolent Information-Processing (SIP) theory described in that paper provides the scientific foundation for the Cognitive Shuffle technique and for mySleepButton.

Here goes…

Analytical Notes about Towards a Somnolent Information-Processing (SIP) Theory

Summary, outline, and structure

Beaudoin & Guloy propose an integrative design-oriented theoretical approach to understanding the Sleep-Onset Control System (SOCS) — the brain’s mechanisms that govern the transition from wakefulness to sleep.
The chapter proceeds through (1) motivation and conceptual background; (2) the integrative design-oriented methodology; (3) summary of theoretical assumptions; (4) sleep research; (5) the role of autonomous agency, affect, and motivation; (6) six postulates of SIP; (7) the Cognitive Shuffle technique; and (8) implications and future research.

The problem it addresses

Most sleep-onset and insomnia models fail to integrate insights from consciousness, emotion, motivation, and repetitive thought research. The authors aim to fill this theoretical gap by articulating a unifying model—the SIP theory—that connects these domains and explains how cognitive and affective processes interact with biological regulation to enable or inhibit falling asleep.

Thesis and argument

SIP theory posits that the function of the SOCS is to cause a controlled transition into sleep when it is safe and appropriate to do so, integrating chronobiological, motivational, and cognitive-affective cues.
Two central original claims are:

1. Mental perturbance—the persistence of insistent motivators—is insomnolent.
2. Emulating features of sleep onset (e.g., imagery, incoherence, relaxation of monitoring) can be pro-somnolent.

Key terms and concepts

• SOCS – Sleep-Onset Control System.
• Somnolent, insomnolent, counter-insomnolent, super-somnolent processes – classifications of information processing relative to sleep onset.
• Mental perturbance – partial loss of executive control due to insistent motivators.
• Integrative design-oriented approach – reverse-engineering functional architectures of mind.
• Cognitive shuffle / serial diverse imagining – technique derived from SIP that occupies executive resources to reduce insomnolence.

Major claims

• The SOCS evolved as a complex control system integrating biological and psychological signals.
• Mental perturbance and computational alarms signal “not safe to sleep” conditions.
• Pro-somnolent processes form positive feedback loops that accelerate sleep onset once initiated.
• Self-efficacy and learning processes can modulate the SOCS, implying trainability of sleep onset.

Ancillary claims

• SIP aligns with Baars’s Global Workspace Theory and Donald’s Multi-Component Convergence theory, interpreting sleep onset as a relaxation of global coherence monitoring.
• Techniques like the Cognitive Shuffle may engage broad neural networks (connectome) to counter insomnolent activity.
• Sleep self-efficacy contributes to improved sleep onset.

Relation to other sources

• Builds directly on Beaudoin (1994, 2020) and Sloman et al. (2005) regarding H-CogAff and mental perturbance.
• Extends Borbély’s two-process model by adding cognitive-affective dimensions.
• Relates to Harvey’s cognitive model of insomnia but provides deeper architectural grounding.
• Integrates Baars and Donald theories of consciousness for functional modeling.
• Provides theoretical justification for applied techniques like mySleepButton and CBT-I enhancements.

CUP’A Evaluation

C: Caliber

A theoretically sophisticated, integrative, and original synthesis grounded in computational and cognitive-architectural reasoning. It offers conceptual clarity missing in much of sleep research.
Significance: high; proposes new vocabulary and framework for cross-disciplinary theorizing.

U: Utility

Practical implications for designing and testing cognitive interventions (e.g., cognitive shuffle) and for improving CBT-I protocols. Potential to inform both empirical and technological innovation.

P: Potency

Strong potential to reshape how researchers conceptualize insomnia and the sleep-onset process by linking affective, motivational, and executive domains.

A: Appeal

Appeals to cognitive scientists, AI modelers, and clinical psychologists interested in integrative theory. May challenge narrow empiricist readers but rewards those interested in deep synthesis.

Productive practice challenges

• Explain in your own words how mental perturbance differs from worry or rumination.
• Construct flashcards defining somnolent, insomnolent, and super-somnolent.
• Sketch SIP’s six postulates from memory.
• Apply the SIP framework to explain why paradoxical intention can help some insomniacs.
• Reflect on how Global Workspace theory supports SIP’s positive feedback loop idea.