Is Hypnotic Induction Necessary to Experience Hypnosis and Responsible for Changes in Brain Activity?

Overview

Journal Brain Sci

Publisher MDPI

Date 2023 Jun 28

PMID 37371355

Authors

Alejandro Luis Callara

Zan Zelic

Lorenzo Fontanelli

Alberto Greco

Enrica Laura Santarcangelo

Laura Sebastiani

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The relevance of formal hypnotic induction to the experience of trance and its neural correlates is not clear, in that hypnotizability, beliefs and expectation of hypnosis may play a major role. The aim of the study was assessing the EEG brain activity of participants with high (highs) or low hypnotizability scores (lows), aware of their hypnotizability level and informed that the session will include simple relaxation, formal hypnotic induction and neutral hypnosis. A total of 16 highs and 15 lows (according to the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, form A) were enrolled. Their EEGs were recorded during consecutive conditions of open/closed-eyes relaxation, hypnotic induction, neutral hypnosis and post hypnosis not interrupted by interviews. The studied variables were theta, alpha and gamma power spectral density (PSD), and the Determinism (DET) and Entropy (ENT) of the EEG signal Multidimensional Recurrence Plot (mRP). Highs reported significantly greater changes in their state of consciousness than lows across the session. The theta, alpha and gamma PSD did not exhibit condition-related changes in both groups. The Alpha PSD was larger in highs than in lows on midline sites, and the different sides/regions' theta and gamma PSD were observed in the two groups independently from conditions. ENT showed no correlation with hypnotizability, while DET positively correlated with hypnotizability during hypnosis. In conclusion, the relevance of formal hypnotic induction to the experience of trance may be scarce in highs, as they are aware of their hypnotizability scores and expecting hypnosis. Cognitive processing varies throughout the session depending on the hypnotizability level.

Citing Articles

An Identification Method for Road Hypnosis Based on the Fusion of Human Life Parameters.

Wang B, Wang J, Wang X, Chen L, Jiao C, Zhang H Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(23).

PMID: 39686066 PMC: 11644267. DOI: 10.3390/s24237529.

Exploring Electrophysiological Responses to Hypnosis in Patients with Fibromyalgia.

Kumar Govindaiah P, Adarsh A, Panda R, Gosseries O, Malaise N, Salamun I Brain Sci. 2024; 14(11).

PMID: 39595811 PMC: 11591762. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci14111047.

An Identification Method for Road Hypnosis Based on Human EEG Data.

Wang B, Wang J, Wang X, Chen L, Zhang H, Jiao C Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(13).

PMID: 39001171 PMC: 11244404. DOI: 10.3390/s24134392.

Neuroanthropology of shamanic trance: a case study with a ritual specialist from Mexico.

Toriz H, Fagetti A, Teran-Perez G, Mercadillo R Front Psychol. 2024; 15:1325188.

PMID: 38505362 PMC: 10948424. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1325188.

Hypnosis measured with monitors of anesthetic depth - EEG changes during the test for Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility.

Zech N, Seemann M, Hansen E Front Psychol. 2024; 14:1267658.

PMID: 38250101 PMC: 10798158. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1267658.

References

McGeown W, Mazzoni G, Vannucci M, Venneri A . Structural and functional correlates of hypnotic depth and suggestibility. Psychiatry Res. 2015; 231(2):151-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2014.11.015. View

Jensen M, Adachi T, Hakimian S . Brain Oscillations, Hypnosis, and Hypnotizability. Am J Clin Hypn. 2015; 57(3):230-253. PMC: 4361031. DOI: 10.1080/00029157.2014.976786. View

Yargholi E, Nasrabadi A . Chaos-chaos transition of left hemisphere EEGs during standard tasks of Waterloo-Stanford Group Scale of hypnotic susceptibility. J Med Eng Technol. 2015; 39(5):281-5. DOI: 10.3109/03091902.2015.1048317. View

Basar E . The theory of the whole-brain-work. Int J Psychophysiol. 2006; 60(2):133-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.12.007. View

Pekala R, Maurer R, Kumar V, Elliott-Carter N, Mullen K . Trance state effects and imagery vividness before and during a hypnotic assessment: a preliminary study. Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2010; 58(4):383-416. DOI: 10.1080/00207144.2010.499339. View

Elkins G, Barabasz A, Council J, Spiegel D . Advancing Research and Practice: The Revised APA Division 30 Definition of Hypnosis. Am J Clin Hypn. 2015; 57(4):378-85. DOI: 10.1080/00029157.2015.1011465. View

Klimesch W, Sauseng P, Hanslmayr S . EEG alpha oscillations: the inhibition-timing hypothesis. Brain Res Rev. 2006; 53(1):63-88. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2006.06.003. View

Maxwell R, Jay Lynn S, Condon L . Hypnosis, hypnotic suggestibility, memory, and involvement in films. Conscious Cogn. 2015; 33:170-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2014.11.013. View

Ishii R, Canuet L, Ishihara T, Aoki Y, Ikeda S, Hata M . Frontal midline theta rhythm and gamma power changes during focused attention on mental calculation: an MEG beamformer analysis. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014; 8:406. PMC: 4052629. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00406. View

10.

Jensen M, Jamieson G, Lutz A, Mazzoni G, McGeown W, Santarcangelo E . New directions in hypnosis research: strategies for advancing the cognitive and clinical neuroscience of hypnosis. Neurosci Conscious. 2017; 3(1). PMC: 5635845. DOI: 10.1093/nc/nix004. View

11.

Wallot S, Roepstorff A, Monster D . Multidimensional Recurrence Quantification Analysis (MdRQA) for the Analysis of Multidimensional Time-Series: A Software Implementation in MATLAB and Its Application to Group-Level Data in Joint Action. Front Psychol. 2016; 7:1835. PMC: 5118451. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01835. View

12.

Delorme A, Makeig S . EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods. 2004; 134(1):9-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009. View

13.

Jiang H, White M, Greicius M, Waelde L, Spiegel D . Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis. Cereb Cortex. 2016; 27(8):4083-4093. PMC: 6248753. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhw220. View

14.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A . Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(4):1149-60. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. View

15.

Ibanez-Marcelo E, Campioni L, Phinyomark A, Petri G, Santarcangelo E . Topology highlights mesoscopic functional equivalence between imagery and perception: The case of hypnotizability. Neuroimage. 2019; 200:437-449. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.06.044. View

16.

Frisaldi E, Piedimonte A, Benedetti F . Placebo and nocebo effects: a complex interplay between psychological factors and neurochemical networks. Am J Clin Hypn. 2015; 57(3):267-84. DOI: 10.1080/00029157.2014.976785. View

17.

Michels L, Bucher K, Luchinger R, Klaver P, Martin E, Jeanmonod D . Simultaneous EEG-fMRI during a working memory task: modulations in low and high frequency bands. PLoS One. 2010; 5(4):e10298. PMC: 2858659. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010298. View

18.

Chiarucci R, Madeo D, Loffredo M, Castellani E, Santarcangelo E, Mocenni C . Cross-evidence for hypnotic susceptibility through nonlinear measures on EEGs of non-hypnotized subjects. Sci Rep. 2014; 4:5610. PMC: 4085592. DOI: 10.1038/srep05610. View

19.

Onton J, Delorme A, Makeig S . Frontal midline EEG dynamics during working memory. Neuroimage. 2005; 27(2):341-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.04.014. View

20.

Yargholi E, Nasrabadi A . The impacts of hypnotic susceptibility on chaotic dynamics of EEG signals during standard tasks of Waterloo-Stanford Group Scale. J Med Eng Technol. 2013; 37(4):273-81. DOI: 10.3109/03091902.2013.794867. View