Brain Dynamics and Hypnosis: Attentional and Disattentional Processes

Abstract

This article reviews recent research findings, expanding an evolving neuropsychophysiological model of hypnosis (Crawford, 1989; Crawford & Gruzelier, 1992), that support the view that highly hypnotizable persons (highs) possess stronger attentional filtering abilities than do low hypnotizable persons, and that these differences are reflected in underlying brain dynamics. Behavioral, cognitive, and neurophysiological evidence is reviewed that suggests that highs can both better focus and sustain their attention as well as better ignore irrelevant stimuli in the environment. It is proposed that hypnosis is a state of enhanced attention that activates an interplay between cortical and subcortical brain dynamics during hypnotic phenomena, such as both attentional and disattentional processes, among others, are important in the experiencing of hypnosis and hypnotic phenomena. Findings from studies of electrocortical activity, event-related potentials, and regional cerebral blood flow during waking and hypnosis are presented to suggest that these attentional differences are reflected in underlying neurophysiological differences in the far fronto-limbic attentional system.

Hypnotizability and immunological response to psychological intervention in HIV

“…Evans and Graham went on to show that random number generation was a facility associated with high hypnotic susceptibility (Evans and Graham, 1980). Subsequently Crawford and Gruzelier and colleagues (Malott et al, 1989;Crawford and Gruzelier, 1992;Crawford, 1994;Gruzelier, 1998) used this concept as an explanatory construct for cognitive and neurophysiological findings that have differentiated high from low hypnotic susceptibility. Among these were responsiveness to visual illusions and reversible figures, susceptibility to autokinetic movement, stronger attentional filtering abilities, the ability to shift from analytic to holistic strategies and the ability to display requisite hemispheric specificity in alignment with task demands.…”

Hypnotizability and imagery modality preference: Do highs and lows live in the same world?

“…It is a multidimensional characteristic including various abilities, i.e. imagery (Crawford, 1982;Glisky, Tataryn and Kihlstrom, 1995;Lyons and Crawford, 1997;Kogon, Jasiukaitis, Berardi, Gupta, Kosslyn and Spiegel, 1998), fantasy-proneness (Wilson and Barber, 1982;Lynn and Ruhe, 1986), expectancy (Council, Kirsch and Hafner, 1986), attention/absorption (Tellegen and Atkins, 1974;Crawford, 1989;1994;Crawford, Brown and Moon, 1993), acquiescence and consistency motivation (Council and Green, 2004). Imagery, particularly in the visual modality, has been frequently considered to be mainly responsible for hypnotizability (Glisky et al, 1995).…”

Modifying pain perception: is it better to be hypnotizable or feel that you are hypnotized?

“…The ability to focus attention on the hypnotist's voice and ignore irrelevant stimuli is required to complete the fi rst stage of hypnosis as described by the neuropsychophysiological model of hypnotic induction (Crawford and Gruzelier, 1992;Crawford, 1994;Gruzelier, 1998;2006). Highly hypnotizable subjects should, therefore, show a greater performance of attentional functioning both in and out of hypnosis.…”