![]() ![]() Specific test suggestions employ objective response criteria and have well known difficulty levels.įrom the inception of scientific investigations into hypnosis (the report of the Royal commission led by Benjamin Franklin in 1784) down to the present day, one central question has divided scientific researchers in the field. Hypnotic susceptibility, the ability to respond to hypnotic suggestion, is reliably measured by administration of standardized scales, comprised of specific suggestions tapping a wide range of traditional content areas: ideomotor (involuntary movement) suggestions, various forms of motor paralysis, positive sensory hallucinations, negative hallucinations (blockage of particular experiences such as in hypnotic analgesia), transformations in aspects of the self (e.g., age regression), or post hypnotic amnesia ( Woody and Barnier, 2008). ![]() Hypnosis is widely used to control pain and distress in a variety of clinical settings and provides empirically supported treatments for a number of important medical conditions and empirically promising treatments for many more ( Mendoza and Capafons, 2009). These suggestions are preceded by a clearly designated hypnotic induction ritual, which marks them out from mundane reality, and terminated by a hypnotic de-induction, which marks the return of everyday experience. Hypnosis here refers to a group of practices in which suggestions are employed to bring about desired changes in behavior, experience and physiology similar to what might be expected if the suggested events were real. This change in the functional organization of neural networks is a plausible indicator of the much theorized “hypnotic-state.” The results are interpreted as indicating that the hypnotic induction elicited a qualitative change in the organization of specific control systems within the brain for high as compared to low susceptible participants. There were no significant differences for COH or for spectral band amplitude in any frequency band. There was also a decrease in beta1 iCOH from the pre-hypnosis to hypnosis condition with a focus on a fronto-central and an occipital hub that was greater in high compared to low susceptibles. The results showed that there was an increase in theta iCOH from the pre-hypnosis to hypnosis condition in highs but not lows with a large proportion of significant links being focused on a central-parietal hub. COH and iCOH were calculated between all electrode pairs for the frequency bands: delta (0.1–3.9 Hz), theta (4–7.9 Hz) alpha (8–12.9 Hz), beta1 (13–19.9 Hz), beta2 (20–29.9 Hz) and gamma (30–45 Hz). The EEG was used to provide a measure of functional connectivity using both coherence (COH) and the imaginary component of coherence (iCOH), which is insensitive to the effects of volume conduction. ![]() Twenty-eight channel EEG was recorded from 12 high susceptible (highs) and 11 low susceptible (lows) participants with their eyes closed prior to and following a standard hypnotic induction. If so then such a state should be observable as a discrete pattern of changes to functional connectivity (shared information) between brain regions following a hypnotic induction in high but not low hypnotically susceptible participants. 2Aston Brain Centre, School of Life & Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UKĪltered state theories of hypnosis posit that a qualitatively distinct state of mental processing, which emerges in those with high hypnotic susceptibility following a hypnotic induction, enables the generation of anomalous experiences in response to specific hypnotic suggestions.1School of Behavioural, Cognitive & Social Sciences, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |