The event-related potential (ERP) and event-related field (ERF) techniques provide valuable insights into the time course of processes in the brain. Because neural signals are typically weak, researchers commonly filter the data to increase the signal-to-noise ratio. However, filtering may distort the data, leading to false results. Using our own EEG data, we show that acausal high-pass filtering can generate a systematic bias easily leading to misinterpretations of neural activity. In particular, we show that the early ERP component C1 is very sensitive to such effects. Moreover, we found that about half of the papers reporting modulations in the C1 range used a high-pass digital filter cut-off above the recommended maximum of 0.1 Hz. More generally, among 185 relevant ERP/ERF publications, 80 used cutoffs above 0.1 Hz. As a consequence, part of the ERP/ERF literature may need to be re-analyzed. We provide guidelines on how to minimize filtering artifacts.

The most well-established finding gleaned from decades of experimental hypnosis research is that individuals display marked variability in responsiveness to hypnotic suggestions. Insofar as this variability impacts both treatment outcome in therapeutic applications of hypnosis as well as responsiveness to suggestions in experimental contexts, it is imperative that clinicians and researchers use robust measures of hypnotic suggestibility. The current paper critically evaluates contemporary measures of hypnotic suggestibility. After reviewing the most widely used measures, we identify multiple properties of these instruments that result in the loss of valuable information, including binary scoring and single-trial sampling, and hinder their utility, such as the inclusion of sub-optimal suggestion content. The scales are not well-suited for contemporary research questions and have outlived their usefulness. We conclude by outlining ways in which the measurement of hypnotic suggestibility can be advanced.

Low-level visual information across saccades 1 Low-level visual information is maintained across saccades, allowing for a postsaccadic hand-off between visual areas

EEG studies suggest that the emotional content of visual stimuli is processed rapidly. In particular, the C1 component, which occurs up to 100 ms after stimulus onset and likely reflects activity in primary visual cortex V1, has been reported to be sensitive to emotional faces. However, difficulties replicating these results have been reported. We hypothesized that the nature of the task and attentional condition are key to reconcile the conflicting findings. We report three experiments of EEG activity during the C1 time range elicited by peripherally presented neutral and fearful faces under various attentional conditions: the faces were spatially attended or unattended and were either task-relevant or not. Using traditional event-related potential analysis, we found that the early activity changed depending on facial expression, attentional condition, and task. In addition, we trained classifiers to discriminate the different conditions from the EEG signals. Although the classifiers were not able to discriminate between facial expressions in any condition, they uncovered differences between spatially attended and unattended faces but solely when these were task-irrelevant. In addition, this effect was only present for neutral faces. Our study provides further indication that attention and task are key parameters when measuring early differences between emotional and neutral visual stimuli.

A diverse array of studies has been devoted to understanding the neurochemical systems supporting responsiveness to hypnotic suggestions, with implications for experimental and clinical applications of hypnosis. However, this body of research has only rarely been integrated and critically evaluated and the prospects for the reliable pharmacological manipulation of hypnotic suggestibility remain poorly understood. Here we draw on pharmacological, genotyping, neuroimaging, and electrophysiological research to synthesize current knowledge regarding the potential role of multiple widely-studied neurochemicals in response to suggestion. Although we reveal multiple limitations with this body of evidence, we identify converging results implicating different neurochemical systems in response to hypnotic suggestion. We conclude by assessing the extent to which different results align or diverge and outline multiple avenues for future research. Elucidating the neurochemical systems underlying response to suggestion has the potential to significantly advance our understanding of suggestion.