Arousal Effects of Electrical Deep Brain Stimulation in Hypnosis

Debenedittis, Giuseppe; Sironi, V. A.

doi:10.1080/00207148808409334

Cited by 15 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Accordingly the highly hypnotizable group showed evidence in line with reduced orbitofrontal-amygdaloid excitatory influences on responding and increased dorsolateral- hippocampal inhibitory influences. The influence of hypnosis on electrodermal orienting and habituation was compatible with the neuroanatomical evidence of De Benedittis and Sironi (1988) arising from recordings of intracranial electrical activity obtained during hypnosis. They found that hypnosis involved functional inhibition of the amygdala and activation of the hippocampus.…”

mentioning

confidence: 50%

Frontal functions, connectivity and neural efficiency underpinning hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility

Gruzelier

2006

Contemp. Hypnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An update is provided of an earlier review (Gruzelier, 1998) of the range of evidence for neurophysiological changes in frontal and lateralized functions with hypnosis, changes which have differentiated high from low hypnotically susceptible subjects, and which led to a working model and neuropsychological translation of the hypnotic induction process. New evidence is outlined from an fMRI/EEG study. This study also disclosed the importance of neural efficiency in left lateral frontal and anterior cingulate structures, and their connectivity, for distinguishing high from low hypnotic susceptibility both in hypnosis and in the everyday state. This amplifies earlier constructs such as cognitive flexibility. Though the focus will be largely on the alteration of connections with the anterior brain and its corresponding alterations of function, interhemispheric, posterior and subcortical connectivity is also considered. The practical implications for the interaction between the hypnotherapist and subject are considered, including stage hypnosis. Key words: EEG, fMRI, hypnosis, hypnotic susceptibility, neurophysiology, stage hypnosis Neurocognitive changes with hypnosis Selective inhibition, dissociation and disconnectionSince the time of Janet dissociation has been historically the dominating cognitive theory of hypnosis (Hilgard, 1965;Bowers, 1992). Now a range of evidence is showing that following instructions of hypnosis a different and unusual pattern of abilities and disabilities is brought into play in hypnotizable subjects compared with the pre-hypnosis state. These involve dissociations between cognitive processes, and disconnections between brain regions together with selective inhibition and enhancement of abilities and processes (Gruzelier, 1998;2004). The likening of hypnosis to an inhibitory process is enshrined in the term hypnosis, itself derived from Hypnos the god of sleep, and initially made popular by Pavlov's inhibitory concepts. Early electrophysiological studies found no evidence of sleep per se (Crawford and Gruzelier, 1992), nevertheless frontal inhibition may represent one dynamic of frontal involvement in hypnosis (e.g. Gruzelier, 1990;1998;Woody and Bowers, 1994;Woody and Sadler, 1998), and one which may be an alternative to disconnection, or be in parallel with it. The experimental evidence for changes in anterior brain activity will be considered in turn. Error detection and evaluation Neurophysiological fractionation of processes, to include possible inhibition, has been demonstrated between error detection processes and error evaluation processes and with the apparent inhibition or uncoupling of the latter, both of which are processes emanating from the anterior cingulate. These processes were measured with event-related potentials (ERPs) in a Stroop-like conflict task (Kaiser, Barker, Haenschel, Baldeweg and Gruzelier, 1997). The ERPs disclosed a dissociation not evident behaviourally. In the highly hypnotizable participants error detection rates decreased and reaction times (RT...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 50%

Frontal functions, connectivity and neural efficiency underpinning hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility

Gruzelier

2006

Contemp. Hypnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been demonstrated both via imaging and intracranial recording that during hypnosis there are changes in limbic structures including the amygdala and the hippocampus (De Benedittis and Sironi, 1988). A close linkage between simple relaxation and a sympathoadrenergic to vagohypotonic transition was hypothesized; nevertheless, the physiological content of the imagery amplifies the autonomic response (Kistler et al, 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Local and systemic vasodilation following hypnotic suggestion of warm tub bathing

Casíglia

Rossi

Tikhonoff

et al. 2006

International Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The therapeutic application of hypnosis to relieve acute, subacute and chronic pain is becoming a widely accepted procedure (Hilgard and Hilgard, 1975;Orne and Dinges, 1984;Moret et al, 1991;Patterson and Jensen, 2003;Cyna et al, 2004). The cortex, limbic system, reticular formation, descending inhibitory pathways and spinal cord have all been supposed to be involved in hypnosis (DeBenedittis and Sironi, 1988;Faymonville et al, 2000;Rainville and Price, 2003;Feldman, 2004). Recent neuroimaging studies have shown that the mid-cingulate cortex plays a crucial role in the antinociceptive effect of hypnosis (Faymonville et al, 2003).…”

Section: Hypnosismentioning

confidence: 99%