The involvement of frontally modulated attention in hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility: cortical evoked potential evidence

Abstract

The frontal N100 difference wave (N100d) between cortical evoked potentials to frequent and infrequent tones was compared before and during hypnosis in subjects with high and low hypnotic susceptibility (n = 10,11). This was to test putative alterations in attention, novelty detection in particular, modulated by anterior functions including the anterior cingulate to auditory stimuli extraneous to hypnosis. Susceptibility was measured with the HGSHS:A and validated with a laboratory scale during the experiment. Results showed that in the highly susceptible participants the N100d was clearly manifested in the pre‐hypnosis control condition, was later attenuated following instructions of hypnosis and was virtually absent after further hypnosis. The effect was due to attenuated responding to the infrequent stimulus, without change to the frequent stimulus. This compromise extended to the later frontal P300 wave whose amplitude was reduced by 50% with hypnosis and was negligible by the end of hypnosis. The parietal P300 was reduced in both hypnosis conditions to a similar degree. These results were consistent with a progressive reduction throughout the hypnotic induction in focused attention to stimuli incidental to hypnosis capable of frontal modulation and frontal activation to the novel stimulus. In contrast the participants with low susceptibility showed an opposite pattern of change in the N100d. Though absent before hypnosis there was a progressive increase in the N100d from the first to the second hypnosis recording. This was underpinned by changes in response amplitudes to both frequent and infrequent stimuli, without systematic changes to the P300. Their results supported a dispersion of attentional resources and an absence of frontal activation in the pre‐hypnosis baseline, compatible with a lack of focused attention and engagement of frontal functions theorized to be necessary for hypnosis. Furthermore subjects with low hypnotizability showed a longer P300 latency at the central parietal peak compatible with more prolonged processing of the rare stimulus, in keeping with a more posterior bias in processing. This may militate against the induction of hypnosis, theorized to require initial engagement of anterior processes, and here supported by the results in the highly hypnotizable participants. Copyright © 2002 British Society of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis

Hypnotizability, Hypnosis and Prepulse Inhibition of the Startle Reflex in Healthy Women: An ERP Analysis

“…On the whole, the present findings confirm our earlier observations obtained using somatosensory painful stimulations that disclosed a reduced somatosensory N140 wave during hypnosis [92] . This finding also parallels previous observations of attenuated sound-elicited frontal N100 wave during hypnosis [93] . Finally, the present observation has provided experimental support to the hypothesis that hypnotizability and relaxation hypnosis may reduce attentional resources to process fear-inducing stimuli in the early stages of stimulus processing [94] .…”

The need to believe: a neuroscience account of religion as a motivated process

“…Such participants were subsequently more likely to report experiences of God's presence during the prayer. Intriguingly, hypnosis research shows comparable neural effects as patients become susceptible to suggestions by the hypnotist and down-regulate attention to conflicting information (Egner & Raz, 2007;Gruzelier, Gray, & Horn, 2002;Jamieson & Sheehan, 2004). Such modulations are dependent Religion, Brain & Behavior 237 on the patients' beliefs about the efficacy of hypnosis as well as patients' trust in the competences of the hypnotist (Kirsch, 1985;Spanos, 1996).…”

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

“…In an auditory attention task, with recording of frontal and parietal ERPs, an accumulation of anterior inhibitory processes was disclosed with the course of hypnosis in hypnotizable subjects (Gruzelier, Gray and Horn, 2002). Specifically, from the prehypnosis baseline to early and later stages, over 40 minutes of hypnotic induction, the hypnotizable participants showed a progressive reduction of attention related negativity (N100) in frontal electrodes.…”